Commission advances housing package 2.5A to commissioners after public debate; one commissioner dissents

The Washoe County Planning Commission voted to initiate a broad package of development-code changes (WDCA25-0001, “housing package 2.5A”) intended to add middle-housing types and related standards to the county code, but the measure drew sustained public comment and one commissioner’s dissent.

Senior Planner Chris Bronsick presented the package and said the amendments do not rezone property, do not increase maximum densities or allow apartment complexes countywide, and do not propose specific development projects. “They do not allow apartment complexes throughout Washoe County,” Bronsick told the commission. He said the changes implement policy in the county master plan (Envision Washoe 2040) and the county strategic plan to expand appropriate housing options and remove barriers to a broader range of housing types.

Key elements of the draft ordinance include adding middle-housing types (duplex, triplex, quadplex, cottage court), defining and adding regulations for guest quarters and employee housing, reorganizing and consolidating multiple regulatory-zone tables into a single table, adjusting minimum lot widths and minimum lot areas for certain urban zones (for example, medium density urban minimum lot area proposed to align to 3,700 square feet in the draft), updating parking and landscaping requirements, and requiring common open space for multifamily developments with five or more units.

Bronsick and Senior Planner Kat Oakley described outreach and revisions: staff held several public meetings and a December 18 community meeting; the draft was pared back from earlier versions by removing proposals that would have changed maximum height in several planning areas. Staff cited regional housing-need figures and affordability trends: between 2010 and 2022 median home value rose about 145% while median household income rose about 58%, staff said, and that county estimates show a need for roughly 6,840 dwelling units in unincorporated Washoe County to meet population growth projections.

Public comment at the meeting included speakers in favor (community members from Gerlach and Spanish Springs who said missing-middle options would help local affordability) and speakers opposed who argued the changes would permit multifamily housing to intermingle with single-family neighborhoods and expressed concern about density, infrastructure—particularly water—and the loss of neighborhood character. A representative of Citizens for Spanish Springs urged caution and objected to what the speaker described as “intermingling” of rental or multifamily units with single-family homes. Other commenters urged broader notice to citizen advisory boards.

Commissioners debated details including minimum lot sizes, reduced lot widths, infrastructure capacity, and protections for rural areas. Staff confirmed that the proposed smaller minimum lot widths for certain urban zones would not apply in rural regulatory zones and that density limits tied to regional-plan designations remain unchanged. After discussion the commission moved and seconded to recommend initiation and approval of the package and to authorize the chair to transmit the commission’s recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The motion passed with one recorded nay.