Clark County forum debates draft zoning code changes on density, housing types, amenities and parking

Clark County planning staff summarized a package of draft zoning-code amendments on Oct. 25 aimed at implementing the county’s 2025 comprehensive plan and increasing housing capacity, then opened the draft for detailed feedback from local builders, developers and other participants.

The county presentation said the draft package would revise low-, medium- and high-density residential standards, consolidate several zoning districts, change permitted housing types in some zones, adjust minimum and maximum densities and revise rules for landscaping, open space and on-site amenities. Elizabeth (Project facilitator, Clark County) said the staff are “continuing with this code in parallel with [the 2025 comp plan] to make sure that, the full housing capacity and and other strategies are realized.”

The draft proposes several notable changes. In low-density zones, the county will clarify that the code’s townhouse limit means “4 per structure outright, not 4 per project,” a correction staff said is part of the biannual housekeeping amendments. In consolidated medium- and high-density zones, staff proposed reducing the number of distinct districts from five to three, focusing permitted uses on multifamily types, and increasing both minimum and maximum densities to help meet capacity targets. For the R24 zone staff proposed permitting triplexes and quadplexes on individual tax lots while excluding platted townhouses in that same zone.

Why it matters: County staff told the forum these changes are intended to increase the number of units that can be built and to steer development toward the housing types the county and the Department of Commerce have identified to meet income-band targets under the comp plan. The proposals would also tighten some dimensional controls and simplify standards so multifamily development is governed by a single table of standards in the R zones.

Debate over townhouses, ownership and entry-level housing

A central point of debate was the R24 proposal to allow triplexes and quadplexes but to prohibit townhouse subdivisions. Several developers and builders warned that excluding townhouses could reduce opportunities for entry-level homeownership.

Dan (Developer) told the group that narrow townhouse lots (15–18 feet) can be built and marketed at price points that reach first-time buyers: “If you put those on the market right now, he’d be about $3.50 for homeownership,” and he warned that excluding townhouses “is a very poor policy decision that the county should pursue.”

Phil (Principal, Ginn Group) criticized the overall direction: “We’re extremely discouraged, extremely discouraged by the direction the county is going,” saying he believed the proposed changes would make homeownership pathways harder to deliver without subsidies. Multiple speakers argued that financing, appraisal and lender practices make detached-for-sale townhomes materially different from condominium products and that prohibiting townhouse lot-based ownership could push more projects into rental-only formats that are harder to convert to ownership.

Staff and some participants countered that the county and the Department of Commerce are targeting certain housing types to meet required income-band capacity, and that some housing types (including many townhouses for sale) historically clustered within higher income bands. Jose (Senior planner, Clark County) told the group he agreed with the value of flexible product that could be configured at development as rental or for-sale, and said the county wanted code flexibility so a project could “actually go either way at the time of development.”

Density, lot-size examples and setbacks

Staff presented draft dimensional examples showing approximate minimum lot size targets: a parcel built to maximum density in the R24 would yield lots “a little over 5,000” square feet for triplexes and “a little over 7,000” for quadplexes, while an R15 lot was noted as about 13,000 square feet in comparison. Staff also proposed a tiered rear setback: the existing 20-foot multifamily rear setback could be reduced to 10 feet for buildings under 35 feet tall.

Multiple participants urged caution about raising minimum densities too high. Derek (Participant) warned minimum floors or lot-area minimums can create inflexibility in sites with unusual conditions (protected trees, odd lot shapes), and could result in parcels remaining vacant if a cost-effective development cannot be achieved. Several builders argued that market forces and underwriting constraints often determine feasible density more than prescriptive minimums.

Open space, amenity and landscaping requirements

Staff proposed separating the historic 20% landscaping requirement into clearer buckets and reducing required L1 landscaping from 20% to 15% of the site while establishing a focused common-amenity requirement around 5% of the site (with alternative measurements of 5% of developable area or roughly 5–10% of residential floor area depending on approach). The draft would also make the existing 48-square-foot private patio requirement for each ground-floor unit optional; private patios/balconies could count for up to 50% of the common-amenity requirement if provided.

Elizabeth presented a worked example: an earlier 52-unit project on 80 Second Street exceeded the current 20% landscaping requirement and had about 12,000 square feet of required amenity area under the existing formula; by the draft’s alternate measurement that same project would require about 4,000 square feet (5% of developable site area) or about 5,600 square feet if measured by gross floor area.

Participants urged design- and product-specific flexibility. Eric (Developer/consultant) and others noted that many urban infill or waterfront projects provide few on-site outdoor amenities because public parks or adjacent urban amenities substitute for private open space. Several speakers recommended decoupling “landscaped area” (lot coverage/impervious surface considerations) from “amenity/open-space quality” so that amenity standards can be tailored by product type and location rather than as a single countywide ratio.

Parking and state reforms

Staff summarized recently enacted state parking reforms and how those change zoning minimums: “On paper, it's gonna be 1 space per unit for any single family dwelling … half a space per unit for multifamily dwellings and no minimums at all for units under 1,200 square feet, affordable housing, and senior housing,” Elizabeth said.

Several builders responded that financing and underwriting commonly require more parking than the state minimums. One participant said lenders often expect about 1.5 stalls per unit (some prefer ~1.8) to underwrite typical suburban garden-style apartment projects, and that developers will continue to provide whatever parking is necessary to secure financing and market the units.

Mixed-use (MX) and commercial/mixed zones

Staff proposed allowing more residential intensity in mixed-use zones by permitting multifamily, duplex, triplex, quadplex and cottage housing and increasing the allowable residential site coverage from 80% to 90% in many cases. The draft also proposes eliminating single-family detached and townhouses as permitted types in MX zones to better align with the county’s modeled capacity scenarios.

Several forum participants cautioned that removing sale-oriented housing types from MX zones could make large mixed-use parcels difficult to finance and develop in suburban locations. Phil said that mixed-use zones often rely on some for-sale detached product to make mixed projects financially viable in suburban settings and warned that removing those types could leave MX land undeveloped.

Outcomes, next steps and formal action

No formal votes or regulatory decisions were taken at the forum. Staff said the next steps are to revise draft code language in response to feedback, circulate updates by email, and prepare initial work sessions with the planning commission and county council starting this summer. Jose told participants the county will continue to refine the draft “to try to meet those objectives, again, below that 80% [AMI],” and staff reiterated that some choices reflect direction from the Department of Commerce and state requirements.

Participants asked staff to consider more flexibility on townhouse allowances, narrower minimum-density prescriptions, clearer distinctions between landscaping and amenity-area obligations, and the practical effects of financing practices on achievable parking and amenity levels. Staff closed by thanking participants and noting that they will share revised code language and continue outreach.

Ending

County staff said they will incorporate the forum’s feedback into revised code language and follow up with participants by email before formal hearings with advisory bodies and the county council. No final regulatory action was recorded at the forum.