New DTC bonus height plan

[nashvylle]

If downtown development is limited, in particular residential development, to a great extent, either more stick frame / wrap product will be built in residential neighborhoods (creating a ton a traffic), or if neighborhood groups completely halt development, then single family homes will be snatched up, pricing will skyrocket, and single family homes will be built from here to Franklin. 

[Luvemtall]

Unfortunately there’s pro’s and con’s with everything, this DTC bonus height program is no exception. I’m 50/50 with the whole thing, I do understand a lot of what is being said, but the jury is still out for now. I don’t mind the above ground parking in a sense that it gives us added height in most projects ( in some cases 8-10 stories worth) which in my book is always a good thing! But on a serious note, if it’s going to cause a bunch of long awaited projects to come to an end and not get built, that’s not a good thing. Especially with housing in the core, like Nashvylle is saying we will see substantial growth of subdivisions for miles . Sprawl will be overwhelming 

[smeagolsfree]

This is not a done deal, so speak out now and raise hell now if you do not like the plan. I know who some of you are and you represent some companies that have a legitimate say in the matter and I know there are others that read the board that are probably highly upset with planning and the Council. The problem is they are trying to get this done while the current council is in office and a lot of these folks will be out of office after this thing passes, but a lot of these same people are running for office as well. Money talks and BS walks if you know what I mean, and it has to pass council either way, so those running for reelection need to hear the voices in opposition and know what your thoughts are.

My thoughts were the same as you can't do all of the parking elimination without mass transit in place. Only short-sighted people like our current mayor try to push things like this. I am surprised that Freddie endorsed some of the parking elimination plan as well. It is not as much about the parking as it is about the traffic. There is no plan to fix the traffic and no plan in sight and not even a thought of a plan. People have to have a way to get around town if there is not parking for cars and the bus system SUCKS. If I am at Vandy and I want to go to East Nashville it is easier for me to bike than bus, but not safer. That is the problem with the leadership. Everything is through rose-colored glasses. We have bike lanes that no one uses because they are not safe. Buses that no one uses because they do not run often enough or go where you need them to go.

 

[CandyAisles]

10 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

This is not a done deal, so speak out now and raise hell now if you do not like the plan. I know who some of you are and you represent some companies that have a legitimate say in the matter and I know there are others that read the board that are probably highly upset with planning and the Council. The problem is they are trying to get this done while the current council is in office and a lot of these folks will be out of office after this thing passes, but a lot of these same people are running for office as well. Money talks and BS walks if you know what I mean, and it has to pass council either way, so those running for reelection need to hear the voices in opposition and know what your thoughts are.

My thoughts were the same as you can't do all of the parking elimination without mass transit in place. Only short-sighted people like our current mayor try to push things like this. I am surprised that Freddie endorsed some of the parking elimination plan as well. It is not as much about the parking as it is about the traffic. There is no plan to fix the traffic and no plan in sight and not even a thought of a plan. People have to have a way to get around town if there is not parking for cars and the bus system SUCKS. If I am at Vandy and I want to go to East Nashville it is easier for me to bike than bus, but not safer. That is the problem with the leadership. Everything is through rose-colored glasses. We have bike lanes that no one uses because they are not safe. Buses that no one uses because they do not run often enough or go where you need them to go.

 

People have to be able to get to a doctor’s appointment without relying on Uber. I wouldn’t be against the current draft if land values and purchases weren’t based on the former version. I, for one, want the streets to tell us when there are too many cars…not our parking garages. Let it hurt the Williamson County commuters…bet then they’ll be more quiet about our transit efforts…or maybe even supportive. When traffic is so bad you’re better off biking or walking…people will start biking and walking.

[samsonh]

12 hours ago, CandyAisles said:

People have to be able to get to a doctor’s appointment without relying on Uber. I wouldn’t be against the current draft if land values and purchases weren’t based on the former version. I, for one, want the streets to tell us when there are too many cars…not our parking garages. Let it hurt the Williamson County commuters…bet then they’ll be more quiet about our transit efforts…or maybe even supportive. When traffic is so bad you’re better off biking or walking…people will start biking and walking.

There aren’t too many doctors offices downtown, which is where this change is affecting.

[andywildman]

On 5/19/2023 at 9:54 AM, CandyAisles said:

Won’t stop development completely but it will to a great extent. Hotel can be built with this…but no residences or office will be developed until the land values reset and the current owners take an extensive bath.

This is only applicable to bonus height. Zoned height can still be built with above-grade parking!

[CandyAisles]

2 hours ago, andywildman said:

This is only applicable to bonus height. Zoned height can still be built with above-grade parking!

Correct. Bonus Height Program only applies to the DTC. Outside the DTC, people are more wont to go SP. 

[Bos2Nash]

Had a very good conversation with Planning during their open house for the this change. We discussed a lot about the parking, brought up activated liners (Planning does NOT want to continue allowing just screened parking, that is a non-starter and I personally agree with it) and they seemed amenable to it with exceptions. One of the big items with the above/below grade parking combo (which is already required by the DTC) is the need for an up ramp and a down ramp. Something we talked about was the idea that similar to how a developer would shoulder the burden of the inefficiencies of liner units, then they could also shoulder the inefficiencies of ramps that go both up and down. Instead of having curb cuts for both of those ramps, internalize them to the site and only have one curb cut allowed for parking. I think there could be ways around this - like have one curb cut be for parking and you have one for loading that also serves as a parking access point - but creating less street facing car space is the intent.

Again, the intent isn't to eliminate parking, but rather to build less and to detach parking as being a NEED or rather an AMENITY within each building in the downtown core. There is a surplus of parking all over the downtown core. A downtown core that is quite honestly small and very easy to walk from one end to the other in a reasonable amount of time. I have been saying this for awhile now, but I think Planning - and many urbanist focused folks - are seeing the two most recent transit plans failing as an indicator that a different path needs to be taken in order to get folks to support other modes to/from and around downtown. We shouldn't go full nuclear, but we clearly need to find a different tact. Providing less parking will require folks to find parking that is already provided (and ultimately pay for it), it will require businesses to either provide parking off site (like the current Nissan shuttle) or provide a "Commuter Benefit" that allows for pre-tax dollars to pay for parking and it will ultimately drive up the price of parking because there will ultimately be folks who just flat out refuse to even entertain other modes.

Another item we chatted about was the building stepbacks. Specifically, we chatted about eliminating them, at least in some of the districts. We currently have 10 subdistricts that require a stepback anywhere from 4 to 7 stories above grade. We have 5 that do not have stepbacks, two of which are Hope Gardens and Sulpher Dell, neither of which have a tall enough height to really worry about a stepback. I suggested moving at least 5 subdistricts - James Robertson, SoBro, LaFayette, Rutledge Hill and Gulch South - into the no stepback group. This could achieve two things, 1) elimination of the "chunky" building feeling because the base magically is getting bigger and 2) could make structures more efficient that a lined parking garage makes less sense to do. To take the stepback conversation further, I brought up the notion of extending the overall Bonus Height Cap much higher along major corridors. LaFayette, Demonbruen, Broadway (Upper), Church, Charlotte, 8th/Rosa Parks specifically. I think that is a future revisions, but at least planted that seed.

We did discuss the actual bonuses too. Even though they were not included in the draft we chatted about how the bonuses could be used to incentivize developers to use them. For instance, the residential unit type bonus could (and should IMO) carry a very lucrative bonus for a willing developer. Additionally I even asked them to include a bonus for going above the required bike parking. They are clearly trying to incentivize multi-modal type transportation, but I suggested to them we should give bonuses for providing additional space for bike rooms that are easily accessible to the ground floor (heard some horror stories of the odd locations bike rooms get located). Currently our zoning requires a certain amount of bike space, but if a developer goes above that figure, they could receive additional density (think of it as the current parking bonuses, but for bikes instead of cars).

Lastly, I was told that NES specifically requested language in the Overhead Power Line pre-requisite that would allow them to veto relocating the utility lines if they deem it too much of a burden. 

Planning was extremely open to ideas and welcome all conversation/thoughts during the open house. There will be another draft released prior to going to planning/council for changes so I will be interested to see what thoughts get integrated and what remains the same. In the next draft we should expect to see what the actual bonuses are too. 

[smeagolsfree]

Why didn't you suggest eliminating MDHA while you were at it! LOL

Too many fingers in the development control pie basically. All things should be controlled by planning unless it has to do with land controlled specifically by MDHA.

[nashvylle]

On 5/21/2023 at 7:39 AM, andywildman said:

This is only applicable to bonus height. Zoned height can still be built with above-grade parking!

That's unfortunate to hear... we will either have surface parking lots remain surface parking lots, or 8-story stick frame buildings with 4 levels of above grade parking. Just mandate all above ground parking be 100% lined with units and be done with it. Perfection is the enemy of very good, in this case. 

Edited May 23, 2023 by nashvylle

[andywildman]

8 minutes ago, nashvylle said:

That's unfortunate to hear... we will either have surface parking lots remain surface parking lots, or 8-story stick frame buildings with 4 levels of above grade parking. Just mandate all above ground parking be 100% lined with units and be done with it. Perfection is the enemy of very good, in this case. 

I don't think that's the case for most of downtown, which is zoned for 10-30 stories. For example, the vacant lot at Rosa Parks & Church St (714 Church) is zoned for 30 stories according to the DTC currently. So the options under the new DTC could look something like:

• 30 stories, including some above-grade parking (say a 7 story podium, 1 story of amenities, and 22 stories of residences)
• 40+ stories, because the parking garage is three stories of below-grade parking, there are diverse units (family sized, senior-oriented, micro-units), the building is connected to the DES steam system, and the development includes some public green space (because there's no parking podium)

Then the developer has to decide: can they sell/rent the apartments without every unit having a parking spot, and does the return on the ~roughly doubling of residential floors make up for the cost of blasting out a below-ground garage and building up another 10 floors.

[nashvylle]

19 minutes ago, andywildman said:

Then the developer has to decide: can they sell/rent the apartments without every unit having a parking spot, and does the return on the ~roughly doubling of residential floors make up for the cost of blasting out a below-ground garage and building up another 10 floors.

It's a definite no, and developers would not even get financing complete. 

Without specifically naming the project, I know one developer tried a <1.0 parking ratio, and leasing was so slow, they had to delay their second phase and use the parking lot for Phase I. 

Edited May 23, 2023 by nashvylle

[Bos2Nash]

2 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

Why didn't you suggest eliminating MDHA while you were at it! LOL

Too many fingers in the development control pie basically. All things should be controlled by planning unless it has to do with land controlled specifically by MDHA.

I've asked other parties with city government about MDHA, specifically putting them under the purview of Planning and I have been told it is not possible. Parties weren't sure, but they believed MDHA is chartered by either the State or Feds. I haven't looked into it beyond that.

That being said, the redevelopment districts are starting to come up on expiration. The East Bank one expires in 2025 for example. I believe there used to be a Five Points one that was not renewed (could be mistaken though).

[andywildman]

10 minutes ago, nashvylle said:

It's a definite no, and developers would not even get financing complete. 

Without specifically naming the project, I know one developer tried a <1.0 parking ratio, and leasing was so slow, they had to delay their second phase and use the parking lot for Phase I. 

Bold statement, and an interesting data point. A few more data points:

• Gulch: Society Nashville (currently excavating on Division St) has <1.0 parking ratio, plus a ground-floor restaurant.
• Pietown: VeLa Pietown (601 Lafayette) has a 0.9 parking ratio planned for for-rent apartments.
• Downtown Core: Alcove+Prime combined have a <0.75 parking ratio for for-rent apartments.
• Midtown: The Albion Music Row development has a planned 0.69 parking ratio for for-rent apartments with ground-floor retail.
• East Nashville: The proposed development at 800 Main St in East has 316 parking spots planned for 379 apartments (~0.8 parking ratio) AND 45k sq feet of office AND 40k sq feet of retail.
• SoBro: The proposed 24 story apartment tower at 4th & Lea has a 0.56 parking ratio in addition to 5 ground-floor retail spots.
• Downtown Core: 901 King (the Giarratana Project on the corner of the TSU campus) has no parking planned for for-rent apartments.

The times, they're changing - even in a car-centric city like Nashville, Tennessee.

[Bos2Nash]

31 minutes ago, andywildman said:

I don't think that's the case for most of downtown, which is zoned for 10-30 stories. For example, the vacant lot at Rosa Parks & Church St (714 Church) is zoned for 30 stories according to the DTC currently. So the options under the new DTC could look something like:

• 30 stories, including some above-grade parking (say a 7 story podium, 1 story of amenities, and 22 stories of residences

This scenario is a kinda sorta. If that is a true parking podium with no liner (and just cladding), then the DTC states that the above ground, non-lined parking cannot exceed the number of below grade parking. So in reality if we were looking at a 30 story tower, that would be 4 levels of below grade parking, 4 levels of above grade parking (3 levels if you were to keep the 7 floors only), 1 floor of amenity and 25 (26) floors of residents. If it was an habitable liner, you could do completely above grade parking though so you would do 7 stories of above grade with 7 stories of residential liner + 1 story of amenity + 22 full floors of residential. 

This is an image direct from the DTC with regards to structured parking:

Honestly, the stepback at level 7 is truly a big driver of the above grade parking. It has been mentioned by others, but eliminating the stepback requirement and the above grade, liner unit discussion loses alot of steam.

24 minutes ago, nashvylle said:

It's a definite no, and developers would not even get financing complete. 

Without specifically naming the project, I know one developer tried a <1.0 parking ratio, and leasing was so slow, they had to delay their second phase and use the parking lot for Phase I. 

Completely understand that because the ones holding the purse strings still do control everything. I remember one developer coming out of NY in which they wanted to avoid underground parking at all costs. They were wanting to build BIG, but also didn't want to build below grade parking. Nashville is currently a "Tier 2" city in the mind of money people because they can still get away with building above grade parking under the current codes. You certainly know better than me on who is looking to invest in Nashville, but I would think there are alot of folks that would still invest even if parking was lessened. I am certainly not wanting developer's lives to get harder (if only because selfishly, many times that means the design team's lives get harder ), but I think our city needs to make some harder choices if we want to take the next step.

We have a bus system that has some ridership, but has a PR problem because everyone thinks the bus is dirty. Some routes are efficient, but the system as a whole is not. I believe overall we are actually at 107% of pre-pandemic ridership, but this ridership is more concentrated. We also don't have a great diversity of uses in the Downtown Core which makes having a car still pretty necessary. Things like diverse grocery stores, not everyone can afford Whole Foods, Turnip Truck or even Publix for that matter. The new Bonus Height brings in incentives to get more diverse uses in the city. Another item that was discussed at the open house was a tiered incentive for bringing in better uses. For example, planning for a grocery store can be difficult and space consuming, so by having that in your project it would be alot higher than say a doctor's office or an urgent care. Not that those two aren't important, but space planning for them is just different and much simpler.

This may be a bold statement (or not depending on you approach) but I think it is me being honest from my personal life. I would actually take a decent slow down in the development of our downtown core, if it meant the urban life/environment took a step forwards. If we were able to create a better Live/Work/Play city for the folks living here, I think we could attract some really great things. It is certainly a short term hurt, but I think it could pay great dividends in the long run for the city.

[markhollin]

The Tennessean has a summary of the proposed new Downtown Code behind their paywall:

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/davidson/2023/05/24/nashville-eyes-changes-to-bonus-height-incentives/70201652007/

Here's the full text:

Nashville is revamping a program that allows developers to build taller buildings downtown if their projects include features that surpass code requirements, like incorporating neighborhood support spaces and multimodal transit support, and excluding parking.

The voluntary program is part of a careful dance to remain compliant with state laws restricting what Nashville can require from developers while incentivizing certain building elements and public benefits supported by Metro planners and urban design advocates.

The Bonus Height Program was adopted with the Downtown Code in 2010, allowing developers within the boundaries of the Downtown Code to earn bonus height beyond what is granted by right in exchange for design that provides public benefit. The Downtown Code's boundaries span from Hope Gardens to Lafayette and Rutledge Hill, and from the Cumberland River to Interstate 40.

An average of four developments use the Bonus Height Program each year. Options related to parking — building parking underground, offering public parking and constructing garage liners — account for 89% of the bonus height earned in the 38 projects that have participated since 2014.

The proposed new "menu" of options is meant to balance out what the Metro Planning Commission deemed an overuse of parking bonuses, putting more focus on incentivizing residential opportunities and support services. Updates also reflect the Downtown Community Plan and NashvilleNext, both of which were adopted after the program's creation.

The maximum number of stories available through the bonus height program varies by subdistrict. The revamp won't change bonus height program caps already baked into the Downtown Code.

Program changes have not been finalized, and city planners are still considering public feedback and working out the formula for each option's conversion into bonus space.

The new draft takes some of the current program's bonus height-earning options and instead makes them prerequisites that developers must meet before they can seek bonus stories. Baseline requirements would include:

• Relocating overhead utility lines.
• Meeting stormwater runoff requirements (the targeted 60% reduction in runoff is often waived).
• Entirely underground parking.
• Inclusion of electric vehicle-ready parking spaces.
• "Silver" level green building certification.

To be eligible for bonus height, buildings must also demonstrate "elevated design," which would be newly defined as sustainable, climate-aware design that prioritizes pedestrians, is harmonious with its surroundings, and contributes artistry to the skyline and ground level.

New and updated bonus options

An online Metro Planning survey with 115 respondents identified an assortment of housing units, enhanced mobility and pedestrian experiences and public spaces as top priorities for bonus height incentives.

The new program draft includes the following options:

• Preservation: Preserving culturally significant structures and/or legacy businesses that contribute to Nashville's history and identity.
• Exemplary and resilient public spaces: Constructing public spaces that meet all Downtown Code public space criteria, most of the code's landscape criteria, and sustainability requirements.
• Neighborhood support spaces: Reserving space in a project's ground floor for neighborhood staples (grocery stores, pharmacies, child care, etc.), cultural or community centers, or for organizations directly serving the community.
• Low-impact development: Exceeding minimum stormwater runoff reduction requirements.
• Green building: Achieving LEED Gold, Platinum or Zero certifications.
• Diverse residential units: Including a diverse array of units with appropriate common areas grouped to encourage community building, including micro units, senior/accessible units, family units or individually leased stand-alone rooms with shared kitchen and living areas.
• Exclusion of parking: Excluding underground and above-ground parking for vehicles.
• Multimodal enhancements: Including multiple multimodal transit strategies, including options like shared bicycle amenities, transit stop enhancements, car shares or micro mobility shares, subsidized transit passes or micro mobility share programs or a cash-out option for tenants who do not use a parking space provided as part of their lease.
• Infrastructure: Contributing to the analysis, design or construction of a Metro-identified infrastructure project.
   

  Under the current Bonus Height Program and the proposed update, developers can only use a certain number of additional "earned" stories defined by subdivision height limits.

  Any additional space a development earns can be transferred to a different project, so long as that development is also within the boundaries of the Downtown Code, making bonus height a commodity to be traded, bought and sold.
  
  (more in next post below)
   

 

Tennessean article continued:
 

Developments receiving this "excess" bonus height from another project remain subject to the bonus height limits in their subdivision.

If a developer wants to exceed the stories available to them through the Bonus Height Program, they can apply to Metro's overall height modification process, a separate program that requires "exceptional" design and additional features eclipsing code requirements. Overall height modification has no height cap, meaning for some eligible projects, the sky is the limit.

Metro's overall height modification process landed in court in March 2022 when residents of the CityLights condominium complex sued the city, opposing the approval of two developments in the Rutledge Hill and Lafayette neighborhoods, each including buildings that top 30 stories in areas otherwise limited to seven and 11 stories, including bonus floors.

A Davidson County chancellor hesitantly ruled in Metro's favor in May 2022, while acknowledging that overall height modification criteria, like "exceptional design" and "contribution to the skyline," are subjective.