Planning staff: Nashville faces shortfall of 20,000–40,000 homes; staff outlines zoning, building-code and infrastructure steps

Nashville Planning on Monday presented preliminary findings from its Housing and Infrastructure Study and told the City Council planning committee that the county’s current zoning map and infrastructure funding tools are unlikely to accommodate projected housing demand over the next 10 years.

Greg Claxton with Nashville Planning summarized the study’s charge and preliminary conclusions, saying the study responds to a council referral (RS 20 24) and seeks to answer whether current regulations and code provisions reduce housing supply, affordability and equity; what it costs to deliver housing that meets the city’s needs; whether existing infrastructure can support anticipated growth; and whether Metro needs additional funding to deliver planned infrastructure. “We think we are probably gonna have an anticipated build out of 70,000 units under this map, and so we anticipate a shortfall of 20 to 40,000 units,” Claxton said.

The findings matter because, staff said, Nashville has a large gap between projected housing demand (which the presentation listed at 90,000–110,000 units over 10 years) and what the current zoning map is likely to permit. That gap, staff said, is compounded by recent cost increases in construction, high interest rates and a long-term shift in the local economy toward higher-wage sectors that has driven housing costs higher.

Clerk and Context: Claxton framed the study around Nashville Next—the county comprehensive plan—and the November transit referendum, “Choose How You Move,” saying those documents guide where the city intends to accommodate growth. He noted the current zoning code’s roots in a 1998 comprehensive update and the many later incremental changes and overlays that, staff say, have produced complexity and uneven results. Claxton said the code currently contains 52 residential zoning districts (26 applied to fewer than 1% of lots and nine applied to no land), frequent use of overlays and special-plan (SP) zoning, and inconsistent definitions for uses such as duplexes and multifamily.

Equity findings: Staff presented historical analysis tying zoning patterns to racial and economic segregation. Using historical maps and 1930s census data, Claxton said zoning patterns aligned lower-density, higher-value zones with majority-white areas and higher-density or industrial zones with majority-Black areas. He told the committee that recent sales-price data show stark affordability disparities: “For the median white family and the median Asian family about a third of neighborhoods in Nashville, their typical home price [was] affordable to them. When we look at Black and Hispanic families that comes down to under 1% of neighborhoods,” Claxton said.

Middle housing and feasibility testing: Planning staff and consultants developed eight “middle housing” prototypes (townhomes, house courts, flex houses, manor houses, low-rise courtyard apartments, multiplexes, low-rise flats and townhouse courts). Staff said prototype test fits and pro forma models show middle housing can lower prices compared with typical recent ownership targets—study figures showed prototype ownership prices reduced by roughly $200,000–$344,000 per unit in prototype markets, and prototype rents lowered by about $300–$600 per month in rental markets. Claxton cautioned that feasibility varies by market strength and that most middle housing types are likely feasible only in stronger market areas without additional subsidy.

Infrastructure and finance: Claxton described infrastructure as a limiting factor. He noted that Nashville cannot use broad impact fees (a legal limitation he said differentiates Metro from nearby counties) and that constitutional tests of proportionality and nexus constrain how infrastructure conditions can be imposed on development. He said past attempts at systemwide delivery—sidewalk regulations, targeted acquisitions, and use of tools such as tax increment financing—have been piecemeal and sometimes undone by litigation. Claxton described collaboration with NDOT (the Department of Transportation), Metro Water, WeGo and other departments to identify constraints and said staff will produce three growth scenarios to test infrastructure alignment.

Staff recommendations and timeline: Staff told the committee it will brief the Planning Commission Thursday, release the draft report and slide deck on Friday to the project website (engage.nashville.gov/housingandinfrastructure), and hold office hours. Initial staff recommendations to the Planning Commission for April include revising detached accessory dwelling unit (DADU) standards to allow them in certain residential districts within the Urban Services District (USD), seeking building-code amendments to allow taller single-stair buildings inside urban overlays with improved safety requirements, and requesting development of an incentives/bonus program for income-restricted units within market-rate housing. For June, staff said they will present alternate zoning scenarios with infrastructure implications, a framework for an affordability bonus, building-code recommendations for plex houses (3–4 unit buildings), and draft design-based zoning districts to encourage low-rise moderate-density housing. Claxton said staff expects to work through the end of the year to recommend zoning-map changes and then monitor implementation over the following two years.

Committee questions: Council members asked about stormwater rules for smaller multifamily projects (Councilmember Sean Parker); whether impact fees would raise housing costs (staff said fees would likely be passed through to housing price but could improve predictability); how recommendations would address displacement and concentration of subsidized housing (staff said the analysis will consider risks to vulnerable communities); and whether PUDs (planned-unit developments) and underused zoning districts might be simplified over a multi-year effort.

What wasn’t decided: The presentation was advisory and produced no committee votes. Claxton and planning staff emphasized these were draft, preliminary findings to be discussed further with the Planning Commission and the public.

Ending: Planning staff will brief the Planning Commission on Thursday, post the draft findings and materials on Friday, and hold public and council office hours to gather feedback before additional recommendations return to the committee this spring and early summer.