Planning Commission hears housing, infrastructure presentation outlining 20,000–40,000‑unit zoning shortfall and next steps

Greg Claxton, lead for the city’s housing and infrastructure study, and Angie Hubbard, housing director, briefed the Planning Commission during a work session on preliminary findings and recommended next steps for zoning, building‑code and infrastructure changes.

Claxton said the team estimates “over the next 10 years, we estimate that the current zoning map is likely to have a shortfall of 20 to 40,000 units,” on top of roughly 70,000 units the map can already support, and emphasized that zoning complexity and infrastructure limits are central to the problem.

The study found the zoning code is complex, with multiple overlays that simultaneously allow unexpectedly large structures in some residential districts while providing limited flexibility in permitted unit counts. Claxton said that combination means neighborhoods sometimes change visibly without producing enough housing to meet overall market needs.

The report separates the issues of land‑use entitlement from infrastructure capacity. Using stormwater and curb/gutter coverage as an example, Claxton said many mid‑century suburban areas lack street‑by‑street curb, gutter and sidewalks, a pattern that makes parcel‑by‑parcel upgrades expensive and often infeasible because “the first person to come in…has to absorb that entire cost,” reducing the likelihood those projects proceed.

Claxton described two broad financing paths: direct public funding through the Capital Improvements Budget (CIB) and project‑level investments tied to private development. He said the city’s current six‑year CIB includes roughly $20,000,000,000 in requests while the typical annual capital spending plan for general obligation bond issuance is about $500,000,000, creating a significant funding gap.

On potential financing and planning tools, Claxton noted options including tax increment financing, industrial development board bonds, business improvement districts and a new state tool called infrastructure development districts; he said some of those are untested locally. He also told commissioners that an impact‑fee approach — common in other fast‑growing southern cities — is not available to Nashville under the state’s eligibility rules today, though he said the absence of a predictable fee has made negotiations around infrastructure inconsistent.

The study included feasibility modeling for “middle‑scale” housing typologies — townhomes, cottage courts, plex houses, manor houses and small courtyard apartments — and found the modeled typologies reduced ownership prices by about $200,000 to $344,000 per unit and reduced monthly rents by about $300 to $600. Claxton emphasized that, despite those improvements, new ownership construction still often requires incomes above 200% of area median income (AMI), down from more than 300% in prior modeling; rental attainability more closely approaches AMI.

Claxton outlined recommendations the team plans to bring to the commission in June and later this year: revise detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) standards to allow them in R and RS (single‑family) districts within the Urban Services District; amend the building code to permit taller single‑stair buildings with enhanced safety requirements; add two new design‑based districts to the zoning code to support predictable low‑rise moderate‑density residential development; revise bulk and design standards to better match neighborhood context; and design an affordability bonus program to allow additional entitlements in exchange for affordable units, enabled by recent state changes.

Commissioners and staff discussed process and sequencing. Claxton said the team intends to add the new districts to the zoning code as a “menu” option first and then work through a separate public process for any map changes (rezonings) that would apply the new districts to specific properties. He said the approach deliberately separates text amendments (the new district standards) from map amendments so communities have a distinct opportunity to weigh in before property maps are changed.

Angie Hubbard, housing director, explained how the unified housing strategy connects with the infrastructure study: “think of Greg…and his work as a general practitioner. He is diagnosing the city… Our city has 1 around affordability. So that's where the unified housing strategy comes in.” Hubbard said the strategy is person‑focused and seeks private, philanthropic and nonprofit partnerships to increase and preserve housing, protect homeowners and keep residents in place. She said the unified housing strategy and the housing‑infrastructure study use consistent data and that the housing strategy would be presented publicly to the planning commission in May.

Multiple commissioners asked about neighborhood character, building materials and the state’s limits on local material requirements. Staff noted a state law limits cities from outright prohibiting specific building materials but allows required materials when the code lists acceptable alternatives or materials “similar in form and function.” Claxton and staff indicated they would evaluate material standards and context‑sensitive bulk standards carefully and that some material or design measures may be feasible on a targeted, case‑by‑case basis.

No formal actions or votes were taken during the work session. Staff said next steps include finalizing code‑text changes and draft districts for community review in May and presenting a recommended framework for potential zoning map changes in June; the team also plans monitoring and potential adjustments to standards after implementation.