Public records library › 26-554 › minCC_2026-07-06.pdf

Extracted text

Machine-extracted text layer of the file above, shown verbatim for search and reading. Tables and slides lose their layout. The original file governs.

# minCC_2026-07-06.pdf
- path: minCC_2026-07-06.pdf
- type: PDF
- pages/slides/sheets: 45
- extraction method: text layer (pages 33, 34, 36, 43: visual transcription)
- unreadable pages: none

## Page 1

Moscow City Council 
 
 
Regular Meeting 
~Minutes~ 
 
www.ci.moscow.id.us 
 
Laurie M. Hopkins 
City Clerk 
 
208.883.7015 
 
Monday, July 6, 2026 
7:00 PM 
Council Chambers 
206 E. Third St. 
 
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. 
PRESENT: Mayor Hailey Lewis, Bryce Blankenship, Drew Davis, Evan Holmes, Sandra Kelly, Scott 
Sumner 
ABSENT: Sage McCetich 
STAFF: Bill Belknap, Mia Bautista, Nichoel Baird Spencer, Megan Cherry, Mike Ray, Lucy Falcy, 
Laurie M. Hopkins 
 
City Council Minutes 
July 6, 2026 
Page 1 of 8 
 
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE  
Mayor Lewis led the Pledge of Allegiance. 
 
CONSENT AGENDA  
1. All Consent Items (ACTION ITEM) 
 
  
  A. Approval of Moscow City Council June 15, 2026 Minutes - Laurie M. Hopkins 
 
  
  B. Approval of Payment of Claims - Sarah Decker 
 
  
  C. Indefinite Trailer Permit at 1824 E. D Street - Lucy Falcy 
    Under MCC Section 6-1-6, City Council may grant a temporary trailer permit for an indefinite period 
if unusual hardship is shown by the issuance of an ordinary 60 day permit. The permit for an 
indefinite period shall only be issued upon showing that the trailer is used to house an aged, infirm, 
or ill member of the immediate family of the owner of the parcel of land upon which said trailer is 
situated and upon which the owner of said parcel of land himself resides; and such permit shall only 
remain in existence until the termination of the condition which required the application for a special 
permit due to hardship. A request has been made to the Planning Division for an Indefinite Trailer 
Permit at 1824 E. D Street in the City of Moscow. The applicant, Ryan Urie, is requesting long-term 
placement of a 33-foot travel trailer to be occupied by his mother and father, aged 79 and 84. The 
applicant has submitted a letter, photos, and a site plan of the subject property for the Council’s 
review. This item was reviewed at the June 22, 2026 Administrative Committee meeting and 
recommended for approval. 
 
ACTIONS: Approve the Indefinite Trailer Permit request.   
 
  
  D. Rendezvous in the Park Alcohol Use Request in East City Park - Amanda Argona 
    Rendezvous in Moscow, Inc. is hosting its annual music and arts festival, Rendezvous in the Park, 
on July 17-18, 2026, in East City Park. The festival features live, family-friendly concerts in the 
evenings, a two-day arts festival for children during the mornings, food vendors, and one licensed 
beer/wine vendor. Following standard operating procedures for events with alcohol within a City 
Park, Rendezvous in Moscow, Inc. is requesting the allowance of attendees to possess and consume 
alcoholic beverages within the event footprint during the hours of 4 p.m. and 10 p.m. during the

## Page 2

City Council Minutes 
July 6, 2026 
Page 2 of 8 
 
aforementioned dates. Per Moscow City Code, Section 5-13-4, a draft resolution has been prepared 
by the Community Events Division and reviewed by the Legal Department for the Council's 
consideration. This was reviewed by the Administrative Committee on June 22, 2026 and 
recommended for approval. 
 
ACTION: Approve the resolution allowing for the possession and consumption of alcoholic 
beverages in East City Park within the event footprint of Rendezvous in the Park during the listed 
times and dates of the event. 
Holmes moved and Davis seconded to approve the consent agenda as presented. Roll Call Vote: Ayes: 
Unanimous. Nays: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 
 
REGULAR AGENDA  
2. Mayors Appointments (ACTION ITEM) 
None offered. 
 
3. Public Comment (limit 15 minutes) 
Joe Thompson (Moscow) represents the Idaho affiliate of the National Federation of the Blind and brought 
up why Moscow doesn’t have audible signals at the traffic lights. He is advocating having them at the 
county and state levels and asked council to petition the state to install them at the highway intersections. 
Mayor Lewis offered to discuss with the Idaho Transportation Department. 
 
John Slagboom (Moscow) said he agrees with Mr. Thompson. He asked about a July 4th proclamation and 
Mayor Lewis said she did not due to the timing of the holiday. He spoke on the proposed FY2027 parks 
capital project budget which includes the East City Park stage construction cost. He requested the contract 
be put on hold until the FY2027 budget hearing is held in August. Mayor Lewis clarified  
 
Tym Park (Moscow) stated he was almost hit by a person riding a scooter at the intersection of Jefferson 
and Third where the site lines are reduced. He emphasized the need for education for electric bikes and 
scooters. 
 
Nils Peterson (Moscow) thanked the council for the trailer permit approved on the consent agenda. He 
requested the council discuss tiny homes. 
 
4. Written Decision Regarding the Appeal of a Board of Adjustment Decision Regarding 513 S. 
Main Street (ACTION ITEM) - Mike Ray 
  On March 2, 2026, Roderick 'Rusty' Olps applied for a Conditional Use Permit to provide educational 
services at 513 S. Main Street. The Moscow Board of Adjustment considered the application at a duly 
noticed public hearing on April 27, 2026. The Board of Adjustment denied the application as 
documented in their written decision dated May 20, 2026. On May 27, 2026, Mr. Olps filed an appeal 
of the Board’s decision to the City Council in accordance with Moscow City Code Title 4, Chapter 8, 
Section 8-5. On June 15, 2026, the Moscow City Council considered the appeal during a duly noticed 
regular meeting of the City Council and reversed the decision of the Board of Adjustment in whole. 
Staff has prepared the written decision for the Council's review and approval. 
 
PROPOSED ACTIONS: Approve the proposed written decision as presented; or approve the 
proposed written decision with modifications; or provide staff with further direction.  
Ray introduced the item as written above. Holmes stated he finds the statement falls into the same trapping 
of what words mean. Davis moved to approve. Kelly seconded. Roll Call Vote: Ayes: Four (4). Nays: One 
(Holmes). Abstentions: None. Motion carried.

## Page 3

City Council Minutes 
July 6, 2026 
Page 3 of 8 
 
5. City Shop Mural Artist Selection (ACTION ITEM) - Megan Cherry 
  Following Council’s approval of the muralist RFQ for the City Shop on December 1, 2025, artist 
submissions were accepted from January 5 – March 2, 2026. A total of 21 artists submitted 
qualifications for consideration. A Selection Panel made up of artists, neighborhood residents, City 
staff, and Moscow Arts Commission (MAC) members reviewed the submissions and recommended 
four finalists to create site-specific designs. The MAC voted to recommend those finalists during their 
regular meeting on Tuesday, April 14th. The finalists presented designs, which were reviewed by the 
Selection 
Panel 
on 
June 
3, 
2026. 
Those 
designs 
are 
available 
to 
view 
here: 
https://moscowarts.submittable.com/gallery/20796d7e-9f79-4a1f-b0f1-0aa1db5f44d7. A public input 
period was open from May 26 – 29, 2026. A total of 43 people responded, with results in the packet. 
The Panel recommended that the MAC and City Council select either the design by Sasha Primo or the 
one by Taylor Shaw, each with slight adjustments to the design. The MAC discussed the designs during 
their regular meeting on June 9 and recommended moving forward with “Forged in Moscow” by Taylor 
Shaw, in Colorway #1. Recommended updates to the design include removing the side-by-side, cement 
truck, and woodchipper, as well as incorporating more figures and park-related subject matter in their 
place. Following City Council approval, Arts and City Shop staff will work with the artist to complete 
design edits and will present the final design to the Mayor for approval. 
 
PROPOSED ACTIONS: Approve the design by Taylor Shaw, with revisions as recommended by the 
Moscow Arts Commission, and the associated professional services agreement, or take such other 
action deemed appropriate.  
Cherry introduced the item as written above. In response to council questions, Cherry explained the 
process for content editing with the mayor making the final decision. An anti-graffiti layer will be used, 
and the basecoat will be completed in the next couple weeks. Kelly moved to approve the design by Taylor 
Shaw, with revisions as recommended by the Moscow Arts Commission, and the associated professional 
services agreement. Davis seconded. Roll Call Vote: Ayes: Unanimous. Nays: None. Abstentions: None. 
Motion carried. 
 
6. Moscow Police Department Sculpture Artist Selection (ACTION ITEM) - Megan Cherry 
  Following Council’s approval of the sculpture RFQ for the Moscow Police Department on February 2, 
2026, artist submissions were accepted from February 6 – March 27, 2026. A total of six artists 
submitted qualifications for consideration. A Selection Panel made up of artists, current and retired 
MPD officers, City staff, and Moscow Arts Commission (MAC) members reviewed the submissions 
and recommended two finalists to create site-specific designs. The MAC voted to recommend those 
finalists during their regular meeting on Tuesday, April 14th. The finalists presented designs, which 
were reviewed by the Selection Panel on June 2, 2026. Those designs are available to view here: 
https://moscowarts.submittable.com/gallery/cf3db467-c437-4510-8be8-e9304e840d04. A public input 
period was open from May 26 – 29, 2026. A total of 89 people responded, with results in the packet. 
The Panel recommended that the MAC and City Council select “Eternal Watch” by Ken McCall with 
slight adjustments to the design. The MAC discussed the designs during their regular meeting on June 
9 and recommended moving forward with McCall’s design. Recommended updates to the design 
include adjusting the scale and position of the wings. Following City Council approval, MPD, Arts, 
and Facilities staff will work with the artist to complete design edits and will present the final design 
to the Mayor for approval. 
 
PROPOSED ACTIONS: Approve the design by Ken McCall, with edits as recommended by the 
MAC, and the associated professional services agreement, or take such other action deemed 
appropriate.  
Cherry introduced the item as written above adding the artwork will commemorate the enduring legacy of 
service carried from one officer to the next at the “end of watch.” The sculpture was crafted to be connected 
to the Moscow Police Department and the 2007 incident being memorialized with the shield, wings, clock

## Page 4

City Council Minutes 
July 6, 2026 
Page 4 of 8 
 
and words. The clock is set at 1:49 to represent Lee Newbill's badge number. The words represented in 
the badge are placeholders as there will be a public input session for the public to provide words that 
represent police work. Suggested design edits was to adjust the scale and/or the position of the wings. 
Cherry would meet with the artist and Chief Dahlinger on how to approach those design edits and then the 
mayor would approve. 
 
Blankenship said the size of the wings was mentioned in the public comments a few times. The space is 
unique and balance is needed.  
 
Davis felt because it is a structural piece of art, the artist thought about how the light would hit the art. 
The piece is on par with what is needed for a theme and location. He is comfortable with the piece as is 
and doesn’t feel edits are necessary. 
 
Holmes likes that the piece meets the criteria for interpretation, grabs your attention, invites you to come 
closer and leaves you with a message. He agrees with Davis, in that the artist had it right with the shadows 
and words for reflection. He would leave the piece as is. 
 
Kelly also agrees with Davis and Holmes. She likes it the way it is. 
 
Davis moved to approve the design by Ken without edits and approve the associated professional services 
agreement. Kelly seconded. Blankenship asked Cherry to provide additional information on what edits 
were discussed. Cherry answered Chief Dahlinger offered notes regarding the size of the badge in 
relationship to the size of the wings. The MAC recommended a minimum height of 14 feet, which would 
make the sculpture taller than the Police Department sign and create a more appropriate scale between the 
sculpture and the building. The edits are ultimately to make sure the work reflects the content and the 
work being done in the building. Holmes stated that he agrees with the motion but intends to vote against 
it so the MAC can make final edits. He noted that the mayor can consider the council's comments during 
her final approval. 
 
Sumner confirmed that the sculpture will not be shorter than the 14-foot minimum. He said he is inclined 
to support Dahlinger’s suggestions, as he will be walking past the sculpture regularly. He also expressed 
confidence that the artist will incorporate the suggestions while ensuring the sculpture remains structurally 
sound. 
 
Roll Call Vote: Ayes: Two (Kelly, Davis). Nays: None. Abstentions: None. Motion failed. 
 
Blankenship moved to approve the design by Ken McCall with edits as recommended. Roll Call Vote: 
Ayes: Unanimous. Nays: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 
 
7. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance Amending Moscow City Code Title 4, Chapters 1, 3, 4, and 6 
Regarding Single-Family Dwellings, Two-Family Dwellings, and Bed and Breakfast Inns 
(ACTION ITEM) - Mike Ray 
  The City of Moscow Community Development Department over the past few years has observed the 
evolution of building plans being submitted for two-family dwellings which increasingly have multi-
family elements. The City has received building permits for the construction of buildings that are 
portrayed as two-family dwellings, but which appear to contain multiple individual dwelling units 
intended to be rented as separate dwelling units and function as multiple family dwelling units. These 
multi-family-like but portrayed as two-family dwellings appear to be intentionally intended to avoid 
life safety, ADA accessibility, and off-street parking that would otherwise be required for multi-family

## Page 5

City Council Minutes 
July 6, 2026 
Page 5 of 8 
 
dwelling units to protect the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of multi-family dwellings and 
mitigate the impacts of the use upon the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning and Zoning 
Commission has identified the need to mitigate the immediate impact upon the surrounding 
neighborhoods by preparing an ordinance to amend certain definitions, ensure there is adequate open 
space, and require sufficient off-street parking. Additionally, in order to be in compliance with House 
Bill No. 583 upon its effective date of July 1, 2026, the City is amending the use table to allow Bed 
and Breakfast Inns as a permitted use in all zoning districts in which single-family dwellings are 
permitted. The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed 
ordinance on May 13, 2026, and unanimously recommended approval to City Council. The 
Administrative Committee reviewed this item at their June 22, 2026, meeting. 
 
PROPOSED ACTIONS: After considering public testimony, approve the Ordinance under 
suspension of the rules requiring three complete and separate readings and that it be read by title and 
published by summary; or consider the Ordinance on first reading and that it be read by title; or reject 
the Ordinance; or take such other action deemed appropriate.  
Ray introduced the item as written above and provided a presentation. See attached. In answer to questions 
regarding air exchange by Holmes, Ray said he spoke with many appraisers. P&Z did discuss egress 
windows. Mayor Lewis opened the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. 
 
Rijel Tavella (Moscow) was an affordable housing advocate in Los Angeles. She encouraged the council 
to reject the ordinance and rebuild it. She said single room occupancy is an affordable housing option for 
the lowest income. Moscow has long history of subdividing housing into apartments. When trying to add 
more housing in the center of Moscow, this is excessive and puts a burden on those trying to provide 
affordable housing. She suggested tabling or rejecting it.  
 
John Slagboom (Moscow) has lived in a subdivided home. He is against these changes and agrees with 
Rijel. He felt these changes make it more difficult and adds cost to developers. He asked the council to 
not punish creativity and vote no. 
 
Nils Peterson (Moscow) thinks this ordinance is a mistake. He feels the root problem is parking and these 
changes are to address parking. Parking needs to be addressed separately. He pointed out Moscow is 
becoming more urban and there is a problem with car storage. He asked the Council to revise the zoning 
code to add building types and adjust parking rules and do not proceed with the amendment. 
 
Mayor Lewis closed the public hearing at 8:37 p.m. Council discussion focused on balancing housing 
needs with life safety requirements and clarifying the intent of the proposed ordinance. 
 
Holmes stated the ordinance does not prohibit multifamily housing but addresses ADA accessibility and 
fire safety requirements. He said it provides greater clarity within the City's code, reduces potential 
liability, and establishes a stronger regulatory framework while allowing future discussions on housing 
policy. 
 
Sumner noted the City already regulates the number of unrelated individuals living in a dwelling, although 
staff clarified enforcement is complaint driven. He expressed support for prioritizing housing over parking, 
stating that reducing parking requirements is one of the simplest ways to encourage affordable housing. 
He suggested considering a home's size rather than the number of bedrooms when determining parking 
requirements. Staff explained the current standard requires two parking spaces per dwelling unit, with one 
additional space for each bedroom over four, and noted that regulating parking by floor area would present 
challenges in distinguishing storage and unfinished spaces.

## Page 6

City Council Minutes 
July 6, 2026 
Page 6 of 8 
 
Mayor Lewis stated that while the community is becoming more urban, the City should be cautious about 
applying suburban definitions. She said increasing the housing inventory should not come at the expense 
of allowing developers or property owners to exploit the unique characteristics of the local housing market, 
particularly its student population. She emphasized that staff's request is for clarification of the existing 
code and regulatory framework used to evaluate development proposals. She noted that when staff 
identifies issues with the current code and the P&Z Commission recommends amendments, Council 
should carefully consider those recommendations. She added that Moscow's housing market is unique 
because of the university's presence and should not be evaluated the same as communities without a 
university. 
 
Kelly supported the need for affordable housing but emphasized that new housing must also meet 
appropriate safety standards, stating the proposed changes are a positive first step. 
 
Blankenship supported the ordinance, stating it provides greater consistency and clearer standards. 
 
Davis said the amendments improve clarity and strengthen life safety protections while ensuring 
multifamily housing meets appropriate safety regulations rather than restricting its development. 
 
Sumner stated the City should continue reviewing its development regulations to facilitate housing while 
minimizing unnecessary ancillary requirements and maintaining a focus on ADA accessibility and fire 
safety. 
 
Blankenship moved to approve the Ordinance under suspension of the rules requiring three complete and 
separate readings and that it be read by title and published by summary Davis seconded. Roll Call Vote: 
Ayes: Unanimous. Nays: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 
 
Mayor Lewis read Ordinance 2026-04 by title: 
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MOSCOW, IDAHO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE 
STATE OF IDAHO; PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT OF MOSCOW CITY CODE TITLE 4, 
CHAPTER 1, SECTION 1-6, DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT OF MOSCOW 
CITY CODE TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 3-4, LAND USE TABLE; PROVIDING FOR THE 
AMENDMENT OF MOSCOW CITY CODE TITLE 4, CHAPTER 4, SECTION 4-2, BULK AND 
PLACEMENT REGULATIONS TABLE; PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT OF MOSCOW 
CITY CODE TITLE 4, CHAPTER 6, SECTION 6-2, OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS; 
PROVIDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE BE DEEMED SEVERABLE; AND 
PROVIDING FOR THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT FROM THE DATE 
OF ITS PASSAGE, APPROVAL, AND PUBLICATION ACCORDING TO LAW 
 
*Text generated with the assistance of ChatGPT, version GPT-5.5. 
 
8. Lot Division at 924 Public Avenue (ACTION ITEM) - Lucy Falcy 
  The applicants, Renee and Emmett Love and Isaak and Aven Julye, are requesting a lot division to 
create two lots of approximately 1.62 and 2.81 acres in size as well as an unbuildable tract of 
approximately 0.59 acres in size on their existing five-acre parcel located at 924 Public Avenue. An 
existing single-family dwelling, 924 Public Avenue, will remain on the newly created southern lot. The 
subject property is located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District. Within the R-1 zone, 
lots are required to be a minimum of 9,600 square feet in size, have a minimum lot width of eighty (80) 
feet, and have forty (40) feet of public street frontage. Both proposed lots meet the minimum lot area 
and width requirements of the R-1 Zone and the existing single-family dwelling will meet all setback 
requirements. The applicants intend to donate the unbuildable tract to Palouse-Clearwater

## Page 7

City Council Minutes 
July 6, 2026 
Page 7 of 8 
 
Environmental Institute to use as a pedestrian path. Property owners within 600 feet of the subject 
property have been notified of the proposed division and a sign was posted on the subject property 
seven (7) days prior to the public meeting date. This item was reviewed at the June 22, 2026, meeting 
of the Administrative Committee and recommended for approval with one condition. 
 
PROPOSED ACTIONS: Approve the proposed lot division with the condition that a minimum of 
fifty (50) feet of width be maintained on Parcel 1 for the extension of Cherry Blossom Lane in the 
future; or approve the lot division with no conditions; or deny the lot division; or take such other action 
as deemed appropriate.  
Falcy introduced the item as written above. One large property is proposed to be divided into three parcels, 
one of which is a non-buildable, L-shaped tract intended for a walking path. The access easement is 
provided for the benefit of the walking path tract. The future extension of Cherry Blossom Lane remains 
to be determined and will not occur as part of this proposal. The purpose of the easement is to ensure it 
remains wide enough to accommodate a future extension of the roadway if needed. Currently, the access 
easement is undersized. Due to the steep terrain, the tract is limited to pedestrian use. 
 
Sumner commented the easement to allow the potential for Cherry Blossom Lane makes sense for 
connectively as if the easement is less than 50-feet, the street could not be extended. 
 
Holmes noted there could be concerns from adjacent property owners regarding the proposed path and 
expressed hope that PCEI would provide appropriate landscape buffers and consult with neighboring 
property owners during the design process. He stated he supports the proposal with the understanding that 
PCEI will work collaboratively with adjacent property owners, similar to the process used for the Palouse 
Path and Latah Trail. 
 
Kelly moved to approve the proposed lot division with the condition that a minimum of the 50 foot of 
width be maintained on Parcel 1 for the extension of Cherry Blossom Lane. Blankenship seconded. Roll 
Call Vote: Ayes: Unanimous. Nays: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 
 
REPORTS  
  City Council and Mayor 
 
Reports were delayed. 
  
 
 
  
ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION PER IDAHO CODE 74-206 (1)(F) – THE MEETING 
WILL NOT RECONVENE 
Kelly moved at 9:20 p.m. to adjourn to executive session per Idaho Code 74-206 (1)(F) and the meeting 
will not reconvene Blakenship seconded. Roll Call Vote: Ayes: Unanimous. Nays: None. Abstentions: 
None. Motion carried. 
 
 
_____________________________________ 
Hailey Lewis, Mayor 
 
ATTEST: 
 
 
_____________________________________ 
Laurie M. Hopkins, City Clerk

## Page 8

City Council Minutes 
July 6, 2026 
Page 8 of 8 
 
CITY OF MOSCOW 
MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION 
July 6, 2026 
 
 
 
Present: 
Mayor Lewis, Bryce Blankenship, Evan Holmes, Sandra Kelly, Scott Sumner 
Absent:  
Sage McCetich 
Also Present: 
Bill Belknap, City Supervisor; Mia Bautista, City Attorney,  
 
 
The executive session was called to order at 8:33 p.m.  
 
• 
1st item: 74-206(1)(f) - controversies not yet being litigated but imminently likely to be litigated 
9:28-9:41 
 
• 
2nd item: 74-206(1)(f) - pending litigation 9:41-9:51 
 
• 
3rd item: 74-206(1)(f) - controversies not yet being litigated but imminently likely to be litigated 
9:51-10:03 
 
The executive session was adjourned at 10:03 p.m.

## Page 9

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
oF THE CITY OF MOSCOW, COUNTY OF LATAH,
STATE OF IDAHO
WRITTEN DECISION OF THE MOSCOW CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE
APPEAL OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION PERTAINING TO THE
PROPOSED USE OF A BUILDING LOCATED AT 513 SOUTH MAIN STREET IN THE
crTY oF MOSCOW,IDAHO.
WHEREAS, Idaho Code 67-6511 authorizes governing cities to establish standards "to regulate
and restrict the height, number of stories, size, construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair or
use ofbuildings and structures; percentage oflot occupancy, size ofcourts, yards, and open spaces;
density of population; and the location and use of buildings and structures."; and
WHEREAS, The City of Moscow pursuant to Idaho Code 67-6509 has adopted Moscow City
Code Title 4,LandUse, Chapter 3: Permitted Uses and Chapter 8: Appeals, Variances, Conditional
and Special Uses; and
WHEREAS, on March 2, 2026, Roderick 'Rusty' Olps submitted a Conditional Use Permit
application to the Planning Division for the use of an existing building to provide music, dance,
and fitness classes in the Central Business Zoneper Moscow City Code Title 4, Chapter 4, Section
4-2; artd
WHEREAS, music, dance, and fitness classes are classified as 'Educational Services' in the
Moscow Land Use Table per Moscow City Code Title 4, Chapter 4, Section 4-2; and
WHEREAS, "Educational Service" is a conditionally permitted use within the Central Business
zone where it is provided by a school or instructor that is not associated with an elementary or
secondary school or college, university, or professional school; and
WHEREAS, on April 27,2026,the ZoningBoard of Adjustment (hereinafter "Board") conducted
a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Conditional Use Permit application (LUP 2026-
0010); and
WHEREAS, the Board denied the Conditional Use Permit application at the April27,2026public
hearing under the determination that it did not meet required Criterion 2: "The character of the
proposed use will be in harmony with the neighborhood and surrounding land uses" as outlined in
Moscow City Code Title 4, Chapter 8, Section 8-4.B; and
WHEREAS, on May 20, 2026, the Board approved their written decision which denied the
Conditional Use Permit for music, dance, and htness classes at 513 S Main Street; and
WHEREAS, on May 27,2026, Mr. Olps filed an appeal of the Board's decision to the City
Council in accordance with Moscow City Code Title 4, Chapter 8, Section 8-5, claiming that the
decision of the Board was unsupported by substantial evidence in the records or as a whole; and
LUP2026-0015 - 513 S Main Street - APPEAL BOA LUP2026-0010 Council Decision
luneX,z0z6
t5
Page 1 of4

## Page 10

WHEREAS, Mr. Olps requested oral argument within said appeal in accordance with Moscow
City Code Title 4, Chapter 8, Section 8-5.B.3; and
WHEREAS, on June 15,2026, the Moscow City Council considered Mr. Olps' appeal during a
duly noticed regular meeting of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Moscow City Council reviewed the complete record related to the appeal, did
not consider any new or additional evidence, and did consider Mr. Olps' oral argument on the
appeal:
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCTL OF THE CITY OF MOSCOW, IDAHO,
AFTER DUE DELIBERATION AND CONSIDERATION OF THE RECORI)
ESTABLISHED BY THE MOSCOW ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND
CONSIDERATION OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION REGARDING LUP2O26-
OO1O AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE ISSUES PRESENTED IN THE APPEAL,
HEREBY CONCLUDES THAT ALL MATTERS STATED ABOVE ARE TRUE AND
CORRECT AND ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN ALONG WITH THE FOLLOWING:
I. 
RE,LEVANT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. Roderick 'Rusty' Olps filed a timely appeal in accordance with Moscow City Code Title
4, Chapter 8, Section 8-5 on the grounds that the decision of the Zoning Board of
Adjustment was unsupported by substantial evidence in the records or as a whole, and he
requested oral argument before the City Council.
2. The City Council considered Mr. Olps' appeal during a duly noticed regular meeting of the
City Council.
3. The City Council considered the appeal pursuant to procedures and requirements of
Moscow City Code Title 4, Chapter 8, Section 8-5.
4. The City Council was provided the complete record related to this matter including all
filings, applications, meeting minutes, written decisions, meeting transcripts, meeting
recordings, and all other official records regarding the matter.
5. Upon review of the record of the Apri127,2026, Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting, the
City Council finds that the record lacks specific evidence or factual findings identifring
any specific operating characteristics or potential nuisances that would result from the
operation of the proposed use on the subject property that would render the use to be
inconsistent or injurious to the neighboring and surrounding properties and land uses.
6. Upon review of the Zoning Board of Adjustment's written decision dated May 20,2026,
the City Council finds that the written decision lacks adequate justification or factual
findings and analysis to support the determination that the character of the proposed use
will be in harmony with the neighborhood and surrounding land uses.
LUP2026-0015 - 513 S Main Street - APPEAL BOA LUP2026-0010 Council Decision
tune?ru. zoze
J5
Page 2 of 4

## Page 11

7. Therefore, upon consideration of the complete record and the written decision of the
Zoning Board of Adjustment, the Council concurs with the appellant that the Board's
decision was unsupported by substantial evidence in the records and as a whole.
DECISION
The Moscow City Council hereby REVERSES the decision of the Zoning Board of Adjustment
in whole.
PASSED on Motion by the Following Vote:
Sage McCetich
Aye
X
Nay 
Abstain Absent
Drew Davis
X
Sandra Kelly
Scott Sumner
Evan Holmes
X
Bryce Blankenship
X
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Moscow, Idaho and APPROVED by the
Mayor of the City of Moscow, this 6th day of July 2026.
CERTIFICATION. I hereby certifu that the above is a true copy of the City Council decision
passed at a regular meeting of the City Council, City of Moscow, held on July 6,2026.
ATTEST:
LUP2026-0015 - 513 S Main Street - APPEAL BOA LUP2026-0010 Council Decision
lune 28 z0z6
t5
X
X
M
:*
M 0
t
o
*
RAIFO
JULY 12
1 BB7
0r

## Page 12

Note: Idaho Code $ 67-8003(1). Within 28-days of this written decision an owner of private
property that is the subject of this action may request a written taking analysis concerning this
action.
Idaho Code $ 67-5231(3). A petition for judicial review of a final agency action other than a rule
or order must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the agency action, except as provided by
other provision of law.
LUP2026-0015 - 513 S Main Street - APPEAL BOA LUP2026-0010 Council Decision
June26,2026
r5
Page 4 of 4

## Page 13

Public Hearing: Ordinance Amending 
Moscow City Code Title 4, Chapters 1, 
3, 4, and 6 Regarding Single-Family 
Dwellings, Two-Family Dwellings, and 
Bed and Breakfast Inns
City Council 
July 6, 2026

## Page 14

Background
• The City of Moscow Community Development 
Department has observed the evolution of building plans 
being submitted for two-family dwellings which 
increasingly have multi-family elements
• Recent building permit applications and construction 
plans have been submitted for structures represented as 
two-family dwellings, but which are designed to function 
as and be leased as multi-family dwellings
• Structures are being represented as two-family dwellings 
to avoid health, safety, and welfare standards (ADA, life-
safety, off-street parking, and other Federal, State, and 
local building standards) that apply to multi-family 
dwellings

## Page 15

Background
• Multi-family dwellings (3 or more dwellings)
▫Fire alarm and suppression systems
▫ADA accessible units with accessible site 
amenities
▫Off-street parking and common open space
• Two-family dwellings
▫No fire alarm or suppression system requirements
▫Not subject to ADA requirements
▫Have a much lower parking requirement and no 
ADA parking is required

## Page 16

Building Codes
• State of Idaho requires municipalities to adopt 
the building codes that are adopted by the state
▫2018 International Building Code
Covers multi-family and commercial buildings
Municipalities may adopt stricter standards
▫2018 International Residential Code
Covers single- and two-family dwellings
Municipalities are permitted to adopt stricter 
standards only in certain chapters
Currently fire sprinkler systems and/or fire alarm 
systems are not required and municipalities are not 
allowed to require them

## Page 17

Existing Definitions
• Dwelling Unit - A building or portion thereof providing 
complete housekeeping facilities for one family
• Family Definition
▫There shall be no more than one “family” per dwelling unit
▫Not more than four unrelated individuals living together as 
a single housekeeping unit
▫“Living together as a single housekeeping unit” shall mean 
where all occupants of the dwelling unit enjoy a common 
right to use the entire dwelling, despite informal 
arrangements among members to designate certain areas 
as individual sleeping spaces, and where such persons share 
household living arrangements, including, but not limited 
to, rental or mortgage payments, utility payments, 
groceries, chores, maintenance of the premises, and 
common sanitary, living, and cooking supplies and/or 
facilities

## Page 18

Living Room
Dining
Kitchen
Office
Garage
Garage
Office
Dining
Kitchen
Living Room
Entry
Entry
First Floor – Typical Duplex

## Page 19

Bedroom
Bedroom
Bedroom
Bath
Bath
Hall
Bedroom
Bedroom
Bedroom
Bath
Bath
Hall
Second Floor – Typical Duplex
Shared 
Laundry 
Shared 
Bathrooms

## Page 20

Bedroom
Bedroom
Living
Living
Dining
Dining
Kitchen
Kitchen
Basement
First Floor
Entry
Entry
Bath
Bath
Bath
Bath
Stair-
well
Stair-
well
Stair-
well
Stair-
well
• Evolving Duplex 
Kitchen Sinks, Cabinets & 
Refrigerators in Bedrooms
Single access from Stairs-
No Hallways

## Page 21

Bedroom
Bedroom
Bedroom
Bedroom
Second Floor
Third Floor
Stair-
well
Stair-
well
Stair-
well
Stair-
well
Bath
Bath
Bath
Bath
Single access from Stairs-
No Hallways
Kitchen Sinks, Cabinets & 
Refrigerators in Bedrooms

## Page 22

Bedroom
Bedroom
Fourth Floor
Bath
Bath
Stair-
well
Stair-
well

## Page 23

Fourth Floor
Bath
Bath
Stair-
well
Stair-
well
Living
Bedroom
Kitchen
Bedroom
Living
Kitchen

## Page 24

Parking Requirements
• Two-family
▫2 spaces plus 1 for every bedroom in excess of 4 
bedrooms
▫4 parking spaces required
• Multi-family 
▫1.25 spaces per studio or 1-bedroom apartment
▫13 spaces required

## Page 25

Bedroom
Bedroom
Bedroom
Bedroom
Bath
Bath
Bath
Bath
Entry
Entry
Bedroom
Bedroom
Bedroom
Bedroom
Bath
Bath
Bath
Bath
Stairwell
Stairwell
Stair-
well
Stair-
well
First Floor
Second Floor

## Page 26

Bedroom
Bedroom
Bath
Bath
Kitchen
Kitchen
Stairwell
Stairwell
Third Floor

## Page 27

Proposed Amendments
• The recent building permit plans submitted as 
two-family dwellings were determined to be 
multi-family dwellings based upon existing City 
Code
• After review of permits issued over the past 2 
years it was determined that clarification of the 
existing code was needed to further address the 
intent of the definitions

## Page 28

Definitions
• 17. Bedroom.  A room within an apartment unit other 
than a living room, kitchen, bathroom, eating area or 
utility room which may be used for sleeping purposes. A 
room other than a living room, kitchen, or bathroom 
containing an egress window and a minimum of seventy 
(70) square feet of floor area with no horizontal 
dimension less than 7 feet. Sinks, final or rough-in 
plumbing, or other plumbing features that could be 
reasonably expected to permit or allow for the 
installation of a sink, shall not be permitted within any 
bedroom. All bedrooms shall be accessed from common 
areas within the dwelling such as a living room or 
kitchen and shall not be designed in a manner which 
would allow independent occupancy unless otherwise 
permitted by this code.

## Page 29

Definitions
• 46. Dwelling, Single Family.  A detached building or 
manufactured home containing one (1) kitchen designed for, 
and occupied exclusively by, one (1) family. A second kitchen 
may be permitted with a recorded deed restriction, so long as 
the property is used as a single-family dwelling only with no 
physical separation established to separate living quarters 
within the dwelling which would allow the structure to be 
used and occupied by two families living independently of 
each other. The classification “single family dwelling” shall 
include any home in which eight (8) or fewer unrelated 
mentally and/or physically handicapped or elderly persons 
reside; and which is supervised.  Resident staff, if employed, 
need not be related to each other or to any of the mentally or 
physically handicapped or elderly persons residing in the 
home.  No more than two (2) such staff shall reside in the 
dwelling at any one (1) time.

## Page 30

Definitions
• 51. Dwelling Unit.  A building or portion thereof 
providing complete housekeeping facilities for 
one (1) family. Housekeeping facilities provide 
permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, 
cooking, and sanitation, and shall be limited to 
one (1) kitchen and two (2) washer and dryer 
sets per dwelling unit unless otherwise 
permitted by this Code. The term "dwelling" 
shall not be deemed to include motel, hotel, 
tourist home, bed and breakfast inn, or boarding 
house.

## Page 31

Definitions (P&Z)
• 76. Kitchen.  Any rooms used or intended or 
designed to be used for cooking and/or 
preparation of food. That portion of a dwelling 
unit devoted to the preparation or cooking of 
food for the purpose of consumption by 
residents of the dwelling unit. Any food 
preparation area with cooking facilities (i.e., 
stove, oven, hot plate, and/or microwave oven, 
refrigerator, or sink) or with a natural gas stub 
or supply or a 220-volt electrical outlet/wiring is 
a kitchen for purposes of this Code.

## Page 32

Definitions (Council)
• 76. Kitchen.  Any rooms used or intended or 
designed to be used for cooking and/or 
preparation of food. That portion of a dwelling 
unit devoted to the preparation or cooking of 
food for the purpose of consumption by 
residents of the dwelling unit. For the purposes 
of this Code a kitchen is a food preparation area 
containing cabinetry and/or countertops, a sink, 
and one or more of the following: a refrigerator, 
cooking device, dishwasher, a natural gas stub or 
supply, or a 220-volt electrical outlet/wiring

## Page 33

[VISUAL TRANSCRIPTION]

Full-page aerial photograph of several city blocks with black parcel boundary lines overlaid. No text layer. The only text on the page is street and alley labels within the photograph:

- ASBURY ST (vertical label, left side)
- ALLEY GRAVEL (vertical label, between Asbury St and Almon St)
- ALMON ST (vertical label, center)
- ALLEY GRAVEL (vertical label, right side)
- SIXTH ST (horizontal label, bottom)

No other text appears on this page.

## Page 34

[VISUAL TRANSCRIPTION]

Full-page aerial photograph of several city blocks with black parcel boundary lines overlaid. No text layer. The only text on the page is street and alley labels within the photograph:

- THIRD ST (horizontal label, top)
- ALLEY GRAVEL (vertical label, upper left)
- ASBURY ST (vertical label, center left)
- ALLEY GRAVEL (vertical label, center)
- ALMON ST (vertical label, right)
- FOURTH ST (horizontal label, middle left)
- ALLEY GRAVEL (vertical label, lower left)

No other text appears on this page.

## Page 35

Definitions
• 61. Functional Open Space.  Land within a 
development which is permanently reserved as open 
space, free from permanent structures, useful for 
recreational or social use by the residents of the 
development, or others; such space shall not include 
streets, roadways or parking areas. Such space shall 
be located on the ground level and may be provided 
via a private yard, deck, or patio area. Functional 
open space shall not include parking areas and the 
smallest dimension of such open space shall not be 
less than fifteen feet (15’).

## Page 36

[VISUAL TRANSCRIPTION]

BULK & PLACEMENT REGULATIONS TABLE

Superscript footnote references are written here with a caret (for example 20^4 = "20" with superscript "4"). Blank cells are blank in the original.

Minimum Setbacks^9 (in feet)

| | AF | FR | SR | R-1 | R-2 | R-3 | R-4 | RO | NB | RTO | CB | GB | MB | I | UMC | U |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Front^10 | 30 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 20 | 15 | 15 | 10 | 20 | 25 | | | 10 | 10 | | |
| Rear | 35 | 30 | 30 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20^4 | | | | | | |
| Side Yard Minimum | 35 | 20 | 20 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5^5/6 | 5^5/6 | 10 | 20^4 | | | | | | |
| Side Yard Combined Minimum | | | | 15 | 15^5 | 15^5 | 15^5/6 | 15^5/6 | | | | | | | | |
| Street Side | 20 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 15 | 13 | 13 | 10 | 10 | 20 | | | 10 | | | |

Exceptions to Minimum Setbacks Listed Above

| | AF | FR | SR | R-1 | R-2 | R-3 | R-4 | RO | NB | RTO | CB | GB | MB | I | UMC | U |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Twinhome and Townhouse Exterior Side Setback | - | - | - | - | - | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | - | | | | | | |
| Garage Door Front Setback (when door faces said street) | 20 | 40 | 40 | 25 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 25 | | | | | | |
| Garage Door Street-Side Setback (when door faces said street) | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | | | | | | |
| Accessory Structure Side & Rear Setback (detached, 200 sq ft or less)^11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | | | | |
| Accessory Structure Side & Rear Setback (detached, greater than 200 sq ft)^12 [the words "Side &" appear in red underlined text] | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | | | | | | |

Common Open Space (minimum 400 square feet per lot or as required below, whichever is greater, residential uses only)

| | AF | FR | SR | R-1 | R-2 | R-3 | R-4 | RO | NB | RTO | CB | GB | MB | I | UMC | U |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | | | 75/du [in red underlined text] | 75/du | 75/du | 75/du | | | 75/du | 75/du | | | |

Maximum Building Height^8 (in feet)

| | AF | FR | SR | R-1 | R-2 | R-3 | R-4 | RO | NB | RTO | CB | GB | MB | I | UMC | U |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Principal Structure | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 65 | 65 | 65 | | | 65 | |

Accessory Structure (detached, GREATER than 200 sq ft, and encroaching into required rear yard setback for the parcel)

| | AF | FR | SR | R-1 | R-2 | R-3 | R-4 | RO | NB | RTO | CB | GB | MB | I | UMC | U |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Building Height | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 65 | 65 | 65 | | | | |
| Wall Height^7 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | - | - | | | | |

Accessory Structure (detached, 200 sq ft OR LESS, and encroaching into principal structure side or rear yard setbacks)

| | AF | FR | SR | R-1 | R-2 | R-3 | R-4 | RO | NB | RTO | CB | GB | MB | I | UMC | U |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Building Height | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | - | - | | | | |

## Page 37

Design requirements for parking lots
d.
Parking lots and spaces shall be designed such that their use will not 
require backing movements or other maneuvering within a street right of 
way.  Parking spaces provided for single family and two (2) family 
dwellings are exempt from this requirement, unless the street being 
accessed is a designated arterial street or there is more than one (1) 
detached single-family dwelling or two (2) family dwelling upon a single 
lot. The continuation, alteration, expansion, relocation, re-construction, 
or replacement of a single or a two (2) family dwelling, for which the 
parking requires backing or maneuvering within a designated arterial 
street right-of-way, shall be allowed where such situation existed prior to 
May 1, 2003, notwithstanding the nonconformity regulations of this 
Zoning Code.  Additional parking required as a result of the expansion, 
alteration, reconstruction, or re-placement of any such two (2) family 
dwelling shall meet the parking design standards required at the time of 
the building permit application.  Where backing movements are 
proposed within an alley right-of-way, a sidewalk with a minimum width 
of three feet (3’) shall be provided adjacent to the parking lot between the 
parking lot and the use served by the parking lot.

## Page 38

Design requirements for parking lots
e.
Parking lots and spaces shall be designed such that a vehicle shall 
not be required to cross another parking space to gain access to a 
required parking space (tandem configuration) except for parking 
spaces serving single-family, two (2) family, twinhome, and 
townhouse dwellings. Parking serving more than one (1) detached 
single-family dwelling or two (2) family dwelling upon a single lot 
shall not be permitted to be tandem, except as provided below.
Tandem parking may be allowed for multi-family dwellings or 
more than one (1) detached single-family dwelling or two (2) 
family dwelling upon a single lot under the following conditions:
i.
The purpose of the parking design is to provide enclosed garages for 
the multi-family dwelling resident use;
ii.
The tandem parking spaces (the parking space within the garage and in 
front of the garage) are assigned and furnished for use by the 
occupants of a single-family dwelling unit without separate, additional 
compensation; and
iii.
No more than fifty percent (50%) of the required parking may be 
provided in a tandem configuration.

## Page 39

Off-Street Parking Schedule
Parking spaces required for designated uses in all zoning districts, except 
within Section 4-6-5(E)(4) below, are established as follows:
1.
Compact Spaces:  An allowance of thirty five percent (35%) of the total 
number of spaces required may be identified and used as compact car 
spaces.  These spaces shall be conveniently located and provided with 
adequate signage.
2.
Fractional Requirements:  Fractional requirements shall require one (1) 
space.    
3.
Area Calculation:  Except as otherwise indicated, area measurements are 
given in gross floor area.  Restroom facilities and areas used for storage 
may be excluded from the floor area calculation.
4.
Bedroom Calculation: Any separate room which meets the definition of 
bedroom, which could legally be used as a bedroom, regardless of 
whether such room is labeled as a den, study, office, or similar, shall be 
counted as a bedroom for the purposes of parking calculation. Rooms 
that meet the definition of a bedroom which are separated by a narrow 
corridor that could allow for the separation of the areas into individual 
bedrooms shall each be counted as a bedroom for the purposes of 
parking calculation.
5.
Specific Zone Exemptions:  The following zoning districts have off-street 
parking requirements specific to each respective zone and are not 
required to meet Section 4-6-5(E)(6) below; however, all other provisions 
of Section 4-6-5 shall apply. 
a.
Central Business (CB) Zoning District:  Off-street parking is not required within 
the CB Zoning District.

## Page 40

Off-Street Parking Requirements
RESIDENTIAL USES
Minimum Number of Automobile Parking 
Spaces Required²
Dwellings in Residential Zones
Single Family (up to 4 unrelated individuals)
2 per du, plus 1 per bedroom in excess of 4 bedrooms
Two Family
2 per du, plus 1 per bedroom in excess of 4 bedrooms
Twinhome
2 per dwelling unit
Townhouse
2 per dwelling unit
Single Family (up to 6 unrelated individuals)
2 per du, plus 1 per bedroom in excess of 4 bedrooms
Multiple Family (3 or more units)
Studio or one bedroom: 1.25 per du                                                
Two bedroom: 1.75 per du                                                                 
Three or more bedroom: 0.75 per bedroom 
Mobile Home Parks
2 per mobile home
Group Living
Boarding House (occupied by owner, up to 6 boarders)
2 per du, plus 1 per bedroom in excess of 4 bedrooms
Dormitories
1 per 2 occupants based upon anticipated max occupancy
Fraternity, Sorority, and Cooperative Houses
1 per 2 occupants based upon anticipated max occupancy
Accessory Uses
Accessory Dwelling Unit
1 in addition to principal structure requirements

## Page 41

RESIDENTIAL USES
Minimum Number of Automobile Parking 
Spaces Required²
Dwellings in Residential Zones
Single Family (up to 4 unrelated individuals)
Two Family
Twinhome
Townhouse
Single Family (up to 6 unrelated individuals)
Multiple Family (3 or more units)
Studio or one bedroom: 1.25 per du                                                
Two bedroom: 1.75 per du                                                                 
Three or more bedroom: 0.75 per bedroom 
Mobile Home Parks
2 per mobile home
Group Living
Boarding House (occupied by owner, up to 6 boarders)
2 per du, plus 1 per bedroom in excess of 4 bedrooms
Dormitories
1 per 2 occupants based upon anticipated max occupancy
Fraternity, Sorority, and Cooperative Houses
1 per 2 occupants based upon anticipated max occupancy
Accessory Uses
Accessory Dwelling Unit
1 in addition to principal structure requirements
2 per du, plus 1 per bedroom in excess of 4 bedrooms
Off-Street Parking Requirements

## Page 42

Building Permit Review
• Reviewed 111 normal single family, two family, 
twinhome, and townhouse plans from 2024-
2025
▫Reviewed plans using proposed changes
Parking requirements 
Sinks in bedrooms
Washer and dryer sets
▫All plans reviewed were compliant with proposed 
changes

## Page 43

[VISUAL TRANSCRIPTION]

LAND USE TABLE

P = Permitted Use; PA = Permitted Accessory Use; C = Conditional Use Permit; Blank = Not Permitted

Superscript footnote references are written here with a caret (for example PA^15 = "PA" with superscript "15"). Blank cells are blank in the original.

| RESIDENTIAL USES | NAICS 2012 Code No. | AF | FR | SR | R-1 | R-2 | R-3 | R-4 | RO | NB | RTO | CB | GB | MB | I | UMC | U |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dwellings in Residential Zones^2 (section header row) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Single Family (up to 4 unrelated individuals) | | P | P | P | P | P | P | P | (columns RO through U carry one merged cell for this group: "See below, Dwellings in Commercial Zones") | | | | | | | | |
| Two Family | | | | | | | P | P | | | | | | | | | |
| Twinhome | | | | | | | P | P | | | | | | | | | |
| Townhouse^1 | | | | | | | P | P | | | | | | | | | |
| ~~Single Family~~Dwelling Unit (up to 6 unrelated individuals) ["Single Family" struck through in red; "Dwelling Unit" added in red underlined text] | | C | C | C | C | C | C | P | | | | | | | | | |
| Multiple Family (3 or more units) | | | | | | | | P | | | | | | | | | |
| Mobile Home Parks | | | | | | | | P | | | | | | | | | |
| Dwellings in Commercial Zones (section header row) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Above or behind a commercial use or on a secondary street frontage | | (columns AF through R-4 carry one merged cell for this group: "See above, Dwellings in Residential Zones") | | | | | | | P | P | | P/C^3 | P | P | PA^4 | P/C^3 | P |
| On the ground floor on primary street frontage | | | | | | | | | P | C | | C | C | C | PA^4 | C | P |
| Group Living (section header row) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Boarding House (occupied by owner, up to 6 boarders) | | P | C | C | C | C | C | P | (columns RO through U carry one merged cell: "See above, Dwellings in Commercial Zones") | | | | | | | | |
| Dormitories | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | P |
| Fraternity, Sorority, and Cooperative Houses | 721310 | | | | | | | C | | | | | | | | | P |
| Accessory Uses (section header row) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Accessory Buildings or Structures (up to 1,000 sq ft) | | PA | PA | PA | PA | PA | PA^15 | PA^15 | PA | | | | | | | | |
| Accessory Buildings or Structures (1,001 to 1,500 sq ft) | | C | C | C | C | C | C | C | C | | | | | | | | |
| Accessory Buildings or Structures (no size limitation) | | | | | | | | | | PA | PA | PA | PA | PA | PA | PA | PA |
| Accessory Dwelling Unit^1 | | PA | PA | PA | PA | PA | PA | PA | | | | | | | | | |
| Accessory Home Occupations Type I^1 | | PA | PA | PA | PA | PA | PA | PA | PA | PA | | PA | PA | PA | PA | PA | PA |
| Accessory Home Occupations Type II^1 | | C | C | C | C | C | C | C | PA | PA | | PA | PA | PA | PA | PA | PA |
| Accessory Gardens | | PA | PA | PA | PA | PA | PA | PA | PA | PA | PA | PA | PA | PA | PA | PA | PA |

## Page 44

HB 583 – Short-term Rentals
• State Code amended to prohibit a city or county from 
imposing different restrictions or obligations on short-
term rentals than are imposed on single-family dwellings

## Page 45

Recommendation
• Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a 
public hearing on the proposed ordinance on 
May 13, 2026, and unanimously recommended 
approval to City Council
• After considering public testimony, approve the 
ordinance under suspension of the rules 
requiring three complete and separate readings 
and that it be read by title and published by 
summary