IDB ad hoc committee reviews Denver housing targets and Nashville zoning tools to expand affordable housing

The Industrial Development Board’s ad hoc committee discussed Sept. 10 how Denver’s recent housing strategy and local zoning changes in Nashville could inform Nashville’s unified housing strategy and the board’s potential role in supporting affordable housing. Committee members reviewed Denver targets for preserving and producing income‑restricted housing, reducing evictions and moving unsheltered people into housing, and discussed local zoning tools such as single‑stair approvals, new RN/RL form‑based districts and a voluntary affordable housing bonus.

Committee members said Denver’s planning effort set measurable five‑year goals and paired those goals with specific programs. As summarized at the meeting, Denver added about 120,000 residents and 56,000 households from 2010 to 2019, a roughly 22% household increase, and later launched an “expanding affordability” effort and a five‑year plan through the Denver Department of Housing Stability (HOST). Denver’s publicly stated targets cited by the committee included increasing the share of income‑restricted homes from 7% to 8% of the housing stock; preserving thousands of ownership and rental units (the committee referenced preservation goals such as 7,000 ownership and rental homes and creation of 900 supportive apartments); reducing the share of low‑ and moderate‑income households facing housing cost burdens (discussed as a reduction from about 59% to 51%); and a goal to deliver at least 2,100 newly developed or preserved income‑restricted units by Dec. 31, 2025. The committee also noted Denver’s targets to reduce annual evictions (from roughly 8,800 to 6,600) and to assist and exit at least 2,000 people experiencing homelessness into housing by the same date.

Committee members discussed program design elements Denver is testing that Nashville is considering. Those include: prefabricated modular construction to speed delivery on small urban lots; standardizing prefab plans and permitting to lower development barriers; and design changes such as allowing a single stairwell in some mid‑rise buildings to save space and cost. The committee noted Nashville recently approved a single‑stair allowance; speakers said state law constrains that approval by limiting the number of units per floor in single‑stair buildings.

Members also examined local zoning reforms intended to enable “missing middle” housing. The RN and RL form‑based districts discussed at the meeting are designed to allow more units within a defined building form rather than relying solely on unit caps tied to lot size; proponents at the meeting said those districts could allow more units on small infill lots while retaining neighborhood scale. The committee discussed a voluntary affordable housing bonus (to be considered at public hearing Sept. 16, as the committee noted) that would let developers receive a density bonus if they voluntarily restrict at least 10% of units at 80% of area median income or below; the committee said state law currently limits some bonus provisions to rental housing.

Committee members cautioned that zoning changes and technical fixes are not automatic solutions. They flagged finance and market constraints — including difficulties securing loans for projects with little or no parking and the role of land costs in infill markets — and said local transit and parking norms affect how quickly new approaches will produce housing at scale.

The committee did not take formal action on programs or legislation during the meeting. Members asked staff to continue research, circulate written summaries of the city case studies presented (including Denver, Austin and New Orleans) and return with analysis tied to the board’s statutory authorities.

The board approved the prior ad hoc meeting minutes from April 9, 2025, by motion; the motion was moved by Mark Wright and seconded by Vice Chair Heston, and the minutes were adopted with one abstention noted because the member had not attended the April 9 meeting.

Committee members said they will return to the unified housing strategy at a future meeting and suggested the board adopt SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, time‑bound) goals tied to any programs the board supports. They also discussed coordinating with Metro on any local legislative opt‑ins that would expand the board’s financing or district authorities.

Next steps identified at the meeting included circulating the presenter’s written notes on Denver and other case studies, scheduling an item to review the unified housing strategy at a future meeting, and continuing to track state and local legislation that affects single‑stair rules, ADUs and voluntary affordability bonuses.