Reno planners debate proposed accessory dwelling unit ordinance amid parking, short‑term rental and lot‑size concerns

City of Reno planning staff presented a draft ordinance to allow accessory dwelling units across single‑family zones and asked the Planning Commission for feedback on lot size, parking and design standards.

“An ADU is a secondary housing unit that shares a lot with a larger primary home,” Grace Mackadon, senior management analyst, told the commission during a 45‑minute staff presentation. Mackadon said the draft was prompted by a City Council direction in November 2023 and by a survey that drew “over 2,000” responses.

The staff draft would: allow one ADU per lot; set a minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet; require one off‑street parking space dedicated to each ADU; prohibit zero‑foot setbacks for ADUs; and rely on existing accessory‑structure compatibility standards for design. Mackadon described the 9,000‑sq. ft. figure as “a place to start” based on prior direction and past proposals and said the city intends to bring a revised draft to council after additional outreach.

Why it matters: The proposal is intended to add housing choice and incremental housing supply in established neighborhoods without up‑zoning entire areas. Supporters said ADUs can enable aging‑in‑place and keep families together; opponents said the draft would change neighborhood character, impose parking and infrastructure burdens, and would not produce affordable homes.

Public commenters voiced wide disagreement. Toni Harsh, a former Reno councilwoman, urged the commission to pair ADU rules with short‑term rental (STR) regulation so temporary rentals do not displace intended long‑term housing uses. Harsh read planning consultant comments recommending that “the City needs to address short term rentals (STRs) at the same time they address ADUs.”

Molly Monacan, who opposed the draft, said the ordinance “basically piggybacks on top of what is our accessory structure ordinance” and warned that draft sizes and setback rules could allow ADUs “up to 29 feet tall” and as close as 5 feet to property lines. She disputed the affordability claim, saying construction costs would make many ADUs unaffordable and that “the parking requirements for this ordinance are not enforceable.”

Greg Evangelatos, a professional planner and resident, supported ADUs but recommended lowering the lot‑size minimum to about 6,000 sq. ft. and allowing flexibility for small existing homes to become the secondary unit. Thomas Tate, a resident of Newlands Manor, said ADUs should be limited to multifamily or mixed‑use zones and argued they amount to “second‑class housing” if occupants cannot buy units.

Design, parking and enforcement drew sustained commission questioning. Commissioners repeatedly asked staff whether the 9,000‑sq. ft. threshold and the one‑spot parking requirement would exclude many neighborhoods that expressed support in the survey. Mackadon said the city had tried broad outreach—multiple neighborhood advisory board presentations, three stakeholder meetings, Spanish‑language radio, social media and a public spreadsheet of comments—and that the draft could be adjusted before council hearings.

On parking, staff said the requirement is for one on‑site space per ADU and that tandem parking must be assigned to the same residence; enforcement would occur through the building‑permit process. On STRs, Mackadon said jurisdictions handle them in different ways—some in business licensing (licensing and proximity limits) and some in land‑use code—and that the council will need to decide whether to pair a separate STR amendment with the ADU ordinance.

Commissioner input varied. Several commissioners favored lowering or removing the 9,000‑sq. ft. floor to capture more infill near transit and sidewalks; others stressed neighborhood character and public‑safety concerns tied to tight streets and curbside parking. Multiple commissioners urged the city to avoid a discretionary conditional‑use path for routine ADUs to reduce cost and delay for applicants.

Staff said ADUs would require building permits and utility “will‑serve” or capacity confirmations; the draft would use existing accessory‑structure dimensional rules (staff noted typical accessory limits such as 1,200 sq. ft. or 50% of the rear yard, depending on district). Mackadon said jurisdictions regionally are trending toward fewer ADU restrictions and that early adoption typically produces incremental change rather than a sudden surge.

What’s next: Staff said the city hopes to take a revised draft to council for feedback in April or May, return to Planning Commission for a formal recommendation, and seek adoption in the summer. Commissioners asked staff to refine lot‑size mapping, estimate likely uptake, and clarify how CC&Rs, PUDs and homeowners associations would affect implementability.

Closing note: No vote or recommendation was taken; the item remained a discussion and staff will return with revisions to forward to City Council.