Reno council sends revised ADU draft to planning commission, asks staff to draft short‑term rental policy

After several hours of public testimony and a wide-ranging council debate, the Reno City Council on April 23 directed staff to revise the city’s draft ordinance to allow accessory dwelling units and forward the revised draft to the Planning Commission for a formal recommendation.

The council’s action came after community members, neighborhood associations and business groups testified both for and against allowing ADUs across single‑family zones. Grace Mackinnon, senior management analyst in the city’s planning office, told the council staff’s draft aimed to allow ADUs “where single‑family homes are allowed,” establish one ADU per lot and include a minimum off‑street parking space per ADU. Mackinnon said staff originally proposed a 9,000‑square‑foot minimum lot size but that several commissioners and public commenters urged lowering or removing that threshold.

Supporters of the draft, including representatives of the Sierra Nevada Realtors and homeowners who testified, said ADUs can expand housing supply and give property owners flexibility to house family members or provide rental income. Kaylee Brown of the Reno‑Sparks Chamber’s leadership class told the council ADUs “offer a practical, scalable solution” for housing and help aging in place.

Opponents and many nearby homeowners said they feared the proposal would upzone single‑family neighborhoods, create parking congestion and worsen safety and evacuation conditions along McCarran Boulevard. Several speakers urged delaying action until the city has a short‑term rental (STR) policy; they said ADUs could be used as unregulated short‑term rentals that undermine neighborhood stability. Longtime neighborhood activists Donna Keats and Molly Manoukian said the draft lacked specific design and compatibility guardrails for attached units and asked for protections such as subordinate size, retained front‑door orientation and clearer step‑back rules.

Council members asked staff to strengthen protections and return with a revised draft. Councilmember Miguel Martinez and others favored lowering or removing the 9,000‑square‑foot lot size to allow ADUs on more infill lots; Vice Mayor Naomi Duerr and Councilmember Naomi Doer pressed for clearer protections for existing neighborhoods and stronger signage, setback and design standards for attached ADUs. Several council members said they were uncomfortable moving forward without addressing short‑term rental rules first.

Councilmember Miguel Reese moved to send the current draft ordinance — modified by the direction given during the hearing — to the Planning Commission for a formal recommendation. The council voted unanimously to refer the revised draft to the Planning Commission and asked staff to prepare a version that incorporates the council’s design, parking and lot‑size feedback. The council also directed staff to bring forward a separate STR policy for parallel consideration and to return to council with any recommended changes from the Planning Commission.

What comes next: staff will prepare a revised ADU ordinance that incorporates the council’s comments, circulate it to the Planning Commission and return to council with the Planning Commission recommendation and any alternative drafts. The council asked staff to include clearer design standards for two common ADU forms — attached vs detached — to preserve neighborhood character and to consider notice requirements for neighbors when ADUs are proposed.

Speakers and roles cited in testimony included Grace Mackinnon (senior management analyst, City of Reno planning), Kaylee Brown (Reno‑Sparks Chamber leadership class), Garrett Gordon (Sierra Nevada Realtors), Donna Keats (neighborhood commenter), Molly Manoukian (neighborhood commenter) and John Hester (former City of Reno Community Development director; submitted a written set of recommendations).

Council direction and practical implications: the council’s referral does not adopt the ordinance; it moves the draft through the formal Planning Commission review. The council asked staff to return with a revised draft that either lowers the lot‑size threshold or, if keeping a minimum lot size, offsets that by strengthening lot coverage, step‑backs and design controls. The council also requested that staff draft a short‑term rental regulatory proposal and present it in parallel. If the Planning Commission recommends adoption, council will consider a second hearing for final adoption.

Community reaction: public commenters were sharply divided; the Planning Commission vote on the earlier draft had been mixed and public input continues. The council’s directive to include neighborhood protections and a separate STR policy was an attempt to balance housing supply goals with neighborhood compatibility and public‑safety concerns.

Votes and formal action: City Council voted unanimously to send the revised ADU draft to the Planning Commission for formal recommendation and to ask staff to draft a short‑term rental policy and incorporate the council’s feedback into the ADU proposal.

Ending: The Planning Commission’s review, public comment and staff revisions are the next steps; the ordinance will return to council later in 2025 for final consideration, either as an amended draft or with a Planning Commission recommendation.