Washoe County could see the development of more housing types in the coming years, including triplexes, cottage courts and employee housing. The Washoe County Board of Commissioners on Nov. 19 heard the first reading of an ordinance to amend portions of the county’s development code to update housing types allowed in certain zones. A second reading is scheduled for Dec. 17.

The ordinance, billed as “Housing 2.5a,” was developed by county staff over the past year following direction from commissioners to reduce regulatory barriers and increase housing types allowed to address affordable and attainable housing needs in the community.

About half of renters in Washoe County are cost-burdened, meaning they spend more than 30% of their household income on housing costs. According to county planner Kat Oakley, the percentage of residents who can afford a median-priced home has dropped significantly over the past 10 years.

“In 2014, the percentage of the population who could afford a median-priced home was 65%, and at the end of 2023, that number was 17.5%,” Oakley said. “It’s talking about the median home price—just your average home in this region—and how many people have access to that.”

Oakley said several factors contribute to the drop in access to homeownership, including salaries not keeping up with housing prices. She also noted that starter homes, as they were developed in the past, don’t exist in most newer developments.

“It is more cost-effective for developers to build more expensive homes and that’s what we’re seeing,” Oakley said.

Revisions to the development code will allow new housing types to be built in the county, including triplexes, quadplexes, cottage courts, employee housing, guest quarters and accessory dwelling units. Some of those types, such as accessory dwelling units (ADUs), were already allowed but were included in the code revisions to add them to certain use tables.

“I hear you loud and clear, and I agree with you on a lot of fronts, but in terms of legal standing, I just don’t see it.”

Parking, landscaping, open space and minimum lot size requirements were also updated.

County officials reiterated numerous times that residential zoning and densities won’t change under the code amendments. The same number of dwellings will continue to be allowed in all county residential zones. For example, triplexes and quadplexes will only be allowed in urban zones and neighborhood commercial areas or in medium-density suburban zones after an administrative permit review.

Multiple changes were made to the proposed code revisions over the past six months before commissioners heard the first reading of the ordinance. Those changes were in direct response to community feedback, including retaining the two-story height limit for commercial centers in Spanish Springs.

Oakley said the addition of a clearer definition of guest quarters was also included. The use type, she said, was developed in direct response to public feedback and allows for a semi-separate accessory structure without a kitchen.

“The idea of this is that it would support aging in place by providing that semi-separate living space for someone who’s still part of the same household but wants that separate space,” Oakley said. “There was a demand for this housing type, particularly for residents who cannot have an accessory dwelling unit.”

Spanish Springs residents lose appeal on code changes

A group of Spanish Springs residents, calling themselves “Citizens for Spanish Springs,” appealed the county planning commission’s recommendation to adopt the development code changes. In their appeal, the group claimed the changes would directly and adversely affect their enjoyment of their properties by allowing developers to build apartments in Spanish Springs.

County officials have emphasized that the amendments will not change housing densities in residential zones. “The number of houses allowed now would be the same number allowed if Package 2.5a were approved,” Oakley said. “It does not propose any development projects and it does not expand allowances for large multifamily projects.”

“some of the rural areas that were described aren’t even being impacted at all.”

Attorney Mark Wray, representing the group, argued that commissioners should approve the appeal because Reno City Council members had denied similar code changes within city limits. He also said the changes wouldn’t lead to more housing and would harm the property rights of existing homeowners.

Wray argued that the county’s revisions demonized single-family homes as “the evil to be addressed.” Instead, he said, his clients simply want “the American dream” of living in single-family neighborhoods.

“Are you telling me that if you sacrifice the dreams of these people, it’s going to satisfy the dreams of other people?” Wray asked.

Despite repeated assurances that apartments would not be built in Spanish Springs residential zones, several residents who were part of the citizen group filed public comments expressing concern about losing the rural and suburban lifestyle they enjoy. Others said the infrastructure in the area wasn’t sufficient to support additional development.

Commissioner Mariluz Garcia said she empathized with the residents but did not believe their appeal had legal standing. “Legal standing and being dissatisfied with something that is being proposed are two entirely different things,” she said. “I don’t see the legal standing or the substantial injury—something illegal taking place. That doesn’t mean I don’t empathize with your concerns. I hear you loud and clear, and I agree with you on a lot of fronts, but in terms of legal standing, I just don’t see it.”

Commissioner Clara Andriola also expressed empathy but said she did not believe the residents were aggrieved. “Speculating is understandable, but the fact is … some of the rural areas that were described aren’t even being impacted at all,” she said.

Resident Pat Davison spoke in support of the development code changes and urged commissioners to deny the appeal. She argued that the region’s population growth rate has outpaced housing development, contributing to a housing shortage.

“If incentives or changes are opposed because they spur the creation [of more homes], then we are in a no-win situation, always playing catch-up with housing,” Davison said.

In a 3-2 vote, with Commissioners Jeanne Herman and Mike Clark dissenting, commissioners found that the resident group did not have standing to file the appeal. They determined that residents were not “aggrieved” under the legal definition because there was no definite or substantial injury to their property rights. They also ruled that the code changes were neither unjust nor inequitable, as they applied to all county residents, not just those in Spanish Springs.

Commissioners concluded that the planning commission was correct in recommending the development code for approval because it met the required findings to proceed.