Moscow council adopts ordinance tightening rules for single‑ and two‑family dwellings

The Moscow City Council voted unanimously on July 6 to adopt ordinance 2026‑04, amending Title 4 of the city code to clarify definitions and parking, open‑space and kitchen/bedroom rules for single‑family, two‑family and related residential building types.

Staff and planning commissioners said the changes respond to a recent trend of building plans submitted as duplexes but designed and leased like multifamily housing, which can bypass requirements for fire suppression, ADA accessibility and off‑street parking. Mike Ray, planning staff, told council the revisions mirror state building‑code definitions where appropriate and close specific loopholes: the proposed bedroom definition adds a minimum of 70 square feet and an egress window requirement; kitchens are defined to require cabinetry/counters, a sink and one of several listed fixtures or hookups; and dwelling‑unit limits on kitchens and washer/dryer sets are clarified.

The ordinance also clarifies how bedrooms count for off‑street parking calculations (rooms that meet the bedroom definition count, even if labeled as a study or den), raises the minimum usable open‑space dimension to 15 feet for developments, and applies multifamily parking and tandem‑parking limits when more than one single‑ or two‑family structure sits on a single lot. Staff said their review of 111 typical plans from 2024–25 showed those plans would comply with the proposed language.

At the public hearing several residents and housing advocates urged the council to reject or substantially rewrite the ordinance. An affordable‑housing advocate who identified herself as Rigel Tovella told the council the amendment would “be a giant slap in the face” to providers of very‑low‑cost housing and urged the city instead to formalize single‑room‑occupancy and other missing‑middle building types in code. John Slagboom and Nils Peterson (Hills and Rivers Housing Trust) warned that adding requirements and parking minimums increases development cost and could reduce housing supply; Peterson recommended eliminating parking minimums in highly walkable areas.

Council deliberations centered on balancing safety and liability concerns with housing affordability. Council members and the mayor repeatedly said staff and the Planning & Zoning Commission had recommended the clarifications after reviewing evidence that some structures were being designed to avoid multifamily standards. Councilor Evan (during deliberation) noted that the change aims to address potential liability for the city if multifamily uses lack required safety and accessibility features. Other councilors emphasized the need to pursue additional policy work on parking, missing‑middle housing types and incentives to produce affordable units.

After deliberation, Councilor Bryce moved, and Councilor Drew seconded, to approve the ordinance under suspension of the rules requiring three separate readings. The motion passed 5–0. The ordinance lists the code sections amended, updates the land‑use table and off‑street parking schedule, and becomes effective upon passage, approval and publication.

City staff said the changes are intended as clarifications to existing practice rather than a broad prohibition on multifamily development; they urged continued work at the planning commission level on complementary topics such as single‑room‑occupancy, parking overlays and other housing tools.