Metro Nashville Bonus Height Program

[smeagolsfree]

I wanted to post this so everyone would have access pdf. This is the DTC sub districts and DTC bonus height program.

In effect there is no unlimited height in downtown Nashville unless you want to build a inclusionary housing building in the core or in one of the allowed areas of SoBro if I am reading this correctly. Everything has limits except inclusionary housing. The only thing that is confusing is that the inclusionary housing is unlimited, but it also says max bonus height is unlimited, so it can be interpreted as all bonus height.

With the Congress Group project at 2nd & Peabody they had outlines more than 30 stories of bonus height, however only 11 stories of bonus height are allowed under the rules.

What is not in there are the new rules of transferred bonus height. The chart on page 99 explains what bonus height is allowed in each sub district. I will let you guys figure out where the boundaries of the sub districts are in the maps that are also in the document.

Now this does not mean that the DTC is not giving out the variances, however if they are doing it all the time then it needs to be changed.

It takes a little reading to figure it out, but that fact of the matter is that this system is old, outdated, because it has not kept up with the growth that has occurred  in Nashville over the past 8 years. I encourage all of you that want this to change that live in Freddie's district to push for a district zone change to the DTC.

The bonus height program starts on page 93

https://filetransfer.nashville.gov/portals/0/sitecontent/Planning/docs/dtc/DTC_170928.pdf

[nashville born]

Thank you for posting this.  Quick check to see if I'm reading it correctly.  For the Upper Broadway sub-district, the max height shows as 100'.  Is that correct?  And for other sub-districts, max is shown as stories.  Why the different measures?

@smeagolsfree

Edited August 3, 2021 by nashville born

[smeagolsfree]

You have to read the floor height too. I do not have it memorized, but that sounds right because of that district.

[CandyAisles]

The only way this would not pass is if the Planning Commission disapproved of it...but they put it together, right?

[BnaBreaker]

[titanhog]

Sounds like an old-style good ol boys system of “if you scratch my back, I’ll give you an extra 10 stories on that building."

[Bos2Nash]

19 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

In effect there is no unlimited height in downtown Nashville unless you want to build a inclusionary housing building in the core or in one of the allowed areas of SoBro if I am reading this correctly. Everything has limits except inclusionary housing. The only thing that is confusing is that the inclusionary housing is unlimited, but it also says max bonus height is unlimited, so it can be interpreted as all bonus height.

The state has wiped out any incentivization of inclusionary zoning. So no bonus height can be achieved through it. The city wanted to incentivize, but they had their hand slapped by the state on it and cannot grant it.

The "Core" subdistrict has a "by-right" zoning of 30 stories, but is also granted "unlimited" bonus height through the bonus height program. While the bonus height is technically capped, the program allows for up to 50 additional floors of height if the development checked every single box (which is incredibly unlikely). This puts a tallest possible tower height (based on the "General Standards" listed below) at around 1,461 feet.

The "Sobro" Subdistrict (General, or 8th Avenue frontage south of roundabout (beyond 100’ from frontage)) has the same by-right and bonus height credentials as the "Core"

19 hours ago, nashville born said:

Thank you for posting this.  Quick check to see if I'm reading it correctly.  For the Upper Broadway sub-district, the max height shows as 100'.  Is that correct?  And for other sub-districts, max is shown as stories.  Why the different measures?

Rolling Mill Hill also has a specific height figure mentioned. As @smeagolsfreementioned there are floor to floor height controls. The "General Standards" dictate the height of floors. So even though majority of the districts have floor count control, the "General Standards" also dictate the floor height. The 100' could have a varying number of floors within that height though.

Here is the "General Standards" for floor-to-floor height:

• The maximum height for an individual story shall not exceed 25 feet from finished floor to finished floor for each of the first 2 stories, 18 feet floor to floor above the second story, and 25 feet for the top story of buildings greater than 5 stories.
• The minimum building height shall be 25 feet. This applies to all buildings except those designed for single-family use, two-family use, or multi-family use with residential on the ground floor.
• The maximum height for a raised foundation is 6 feet above grade. 

[downtownresident]

To add, projects can request an Overall Height Modification if they wish to exceed the capped bonus height for their sub district, which requires that they show that they’ve tried to maximize bonus height available, show an “exceptional design, hold a community meeting,  and get approval by the planning commission. This is the route that Modera McGavock, Circle South, Vorhees Tower 2, Albion, and 2nd and Peabody have gone down. 
 

Under Overall Height Modification the planning website states: 

“Property owners can request additional height beyond what the Downtown Code or Bonus Height Program offer. The Downtown Code Design Review Committee or MDHA Design Review Committee makes a recommendation to the Planning Commission, which may grant additional height for exceptional design like unique architecture, great streetscape, and context with nearby properties.”

[smeagolsfree]

2 hours ago, Bos2Nash said:

The state has wiped out any incentivization of inclusionary zoning. So no bonus height can be achieved through it. The city wanted to incentivize, but they had their hand slapped by the state on it and cannot grant it.

The "Core" subdistrict has a "by-right" zoning of 30 stories, but is also granted "unlimited" bonus height through the bonus height program. While the bonus height is technically capped, the program allows for up to 50 additional floors of height if the development checked every single box (which is incredibly unlikely). This puts a tallest possible tower height (based on the "General Standards" listed below) at around 1,461 feet.

The "Sobro" Subdistrict (General, or 8th Avenue frontage south of roundabout (beyond 100’ from frontage)) has the same by-right and bonus height credentials as the "Core"

Rolling Mill Hill also has a specific height figure mentioned. As @smeagolsfreementioned there are floor to floor height controls. The "General Standards" dictate the height of floors. So even though majority of the districts have floor count control, the "General Standards" also dictate the floor height. The 100' could have a varying number of floors within that height though.

Here is the "General Standards" for floor-to-floor height:

• The maximum height for an individual story shall not exceed 25 feet from finished floor to finished floor for each of the first 2 stories, 18 feet floor to floor above the second story, and 25 feet for the top story of buildings greater than 5 stories.
• The minimum building height shall be 25 feet. This applies to all buildings except those designed for single-family use, two-family use, or multi-family use with residential on the ground floor.
• The maximum height for a raised foundation is 6 feet above grade. 

Thanks for all of the clarification Craig. To the novice it is almost Greek. Also the fact the the Bonus height program fails to mention this is a black eye for Metro since this as not been updated in the material. This further brings light to the fact that the whole system and the Districts need to be updated!

[Bos2Nash]

28 minutes ago, smeagolsfree said:

Thanks for all of the clarification Craig. To the novice it is almost Greek. Also the fact the the Bonus height program fails to mention this is a black eye for Metro since this as not been updated in the material. This further brings light to the fact that the whole system and the Districts need to be updated!

No problem. One could argue that these types of documents aren't developed for John and Jane Doe, but more for those who are involved with the process. I do agree with the fact that these documents should be updated to reflect items such as the inclusionary zoning (this is one of the first things planning will tell you when you walk in the door too).

For those are interested, The Downtown Code has a Draft revision currently on their website. https://www.nashville.gov/sites/default/files/2021-07/DTC_draft_210629.pdf?ct=1625149722. I havent had time to digest all the changes, but smallish items are getting updated.

[smeagolsfree]

 

Thanks, Craig!

 

57 minutes ago, Bos2Nash said:

No problem. One could argue that these types of documents aren't developed for John and Jane Doe, but more for those who are involved with the process. I do agree with the fact that these documents should be updated to reflect items such as the inclusionary zoning (this is one of the first things planning will tell you when you walk in the door too).

For those are interested, The Downtown Code has a Draft revision currently on their website. https://www.nashville.gov/sites/default/files/2021-07/DTC_draft_210629.pdf?ct=1625149722. I havent had time to digest all the changes, but smallish items are getting updated.

The inclusionary housing is still in there, and there are no changes to any of the zones except the mid Gulch I believe. Garbage in garbage out.

Again, there needs to be a MAJOR overhaul, not just piecemeal

[nashvylle]

@Bos2Nash I thought the state prohibited metro from "mandating" inclusion housing (like Barry administration did). However, if a developer willingly has inclusionary housing, that's different. Right?

[Bos2Nash]

45 minutes ago, nashvylle said:

@Bos2Nash I thought the state prohibited metro from "mandating" inclusion housing (like Barry administration did). However, if a developer willingly has inclusionary housing, that's different. Right?

The state has outlawed any mandate or incentivization of inclusionary zoning. If a developer wants to include it in their development, they are free to do so, but the state will not allow any incentivization (ie tax breaks) for it. A developer can go through the Barnes Fund for assistance, but that takes time that many developers don't want to take. Currently, the big developments that are including affordable housing I believe are primarily through Community Benefit Agreements.

There are several affordable housing developers in the city that is well versed in the process, but their projects are slower and often smaller because of the overall process.