An ordinance to amend Title 17 of the Metropolitan Code of Laws, the Zoning Ordinance of The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, by amending a Specific Plan for various properties generally located west of Gallatin Avenue, east of Emmett Avenue, south of McClurkan Avenue, and north of Douglas Avenue, zoned SP, and changing the zoning on properties from RS5, CS, and OR20 to SP (19.09 acres), to permit a mixed-use development, all of which is described herein (Proposal No. 2022SP-075-002).

Topics

Introduced: August 18, 2026
Last action: Passed on third reading as amended · August 18, 2026

Sponsors

Sean Parker Lead

AI summary — check the source Spot-checked in audit

Council OKs rezoning for 19-acre mixed-use project near Gallatin Avenue

The Council gave final approval to a rezoning of about 19 acres between Gallatin, Emmett, McClurkan and Douglas avenues, clearing the way for a mixed-use development. Before the final vote, the sponsor added an amendment covering traffic signal timing, landscaping around a mansion being relocated on the site, and a required mix of attached versus detached homes. No one spoke against the bill or the amendment; the presiding officer asked twice for discussion and heard none. The bill passed on third reading (the final council vote) as amended, along with its companion bill.

What it does

It changes the zoning on roughly 19.09 acres from RS5, CS and OR20 to SP (a "specific plan" district, where the approved site plan sets the rules) and amends an existing specific plan, so a mixed-use development can be built there. The adopted amendment requires NDOT (Metro's transportation department) to evaluate signal timing at a new realigned intersection, formalizes landscaping and open space around the relocated mansion on the site, and requires at least 40% of the homes behind the mansion to be attached units such as townhomes, with no more than 60% detached single-family houses.

What happened, in plain language

The bill passed on third reading (the final council vote) as amended, meaning the rezoning is approved and the amendment's conditions are now part of it. In this packet the vote is recorded as a voice vote with an empty vote list, so no individual council members' positions are recorded here — the presiding officer called for ayes, asked for any no votes or abstentions, and declared it passed. Note that the official action text for this item instead lists a roll call of Yes (37), No (0), Abstain (0); the amendment itself was adopted by voice vote. Because this was third reading, the ordinance has completed the Council's three-reading process and no further council vote on it is expected.

On the floor · 8 points

Context

The Planning and Zoning Committee chair reported that the committee approved the amendment 8-0 (eight in favor, none against, none not voting) and approved the bill as amended by the same 8-0 count.

a council member Watch 2:22:43
For

The sponsor explained the amendment's first piece: it requires NDOT to evaluate signal timing, because the project likely adds a signal at a newly realigned intersection close to Douglas and Gallatin, and he wanted to avoid recreating a "speedway" of untimed back-to-back signals.

a council member Watch 2:23:18
For

Second piece of the amendment: it formalizes improved landscaping and open space around the mansion being relocated on the site, something neighbors had asked about repeatedly. He noted the parcel for the house has already been replatted, that there is no tenant or final build-out plan yet, but that making the condition official should yield a more inviting setting around the mansion.

a council member Watch 2:23:44
For

Third piece of the amendment: the plan only sketched out how many townhomes versus freestanding houses would be built, so the amendment sets a floor requiring at least 40% of units in the residential area behind the mansion to be attached (townhome or similar) and no more than 60% detached single-family style.

a council member Watch 2:24:20
For

The sponsor asked colleagues to support the amendment and offered to answer questions.

a council member Watch 2:24:53
Context

The presiding officer asked whether there was any discussion on the motion to amend; no one responded, and the amendment was approved by voice vote.

a speaker Watch 2:25:02
Context

The presiding officer explained that the bill would be advanced together with its companion, BL2026-1404, which restricts certain materials in the construction of the buildings.

a speaker Watch 2:25:12
Context

The presiding officer again asked whether there was any discussion before the final vote; no one spoke, and the bill was passed as amended on third and final reading.

a speaker Watch 2:25:33

What the AI is unsure about

Discrepancy in the packet: the metadata says voice_vote is true with an empty votes array, but the official action text lists a 37-0 roll call for passage on third reading; the transcript itself only shows a voice vote ("all in favor, please say aye"). I reported both and did not pick a winner. The transcript uses anonymous SPEAKER_NN ids, so no speaker is named here; the official action text separately credits Council Member Parker with moving the bill and offering Amendment No. 1, and the presiding officer refers to "sponsor Parker," but I did not attach that name to specific transcript lines. Auto-transcription garbles several proper nouns: "Gallagher" for Gallatin, "McClarkin" for McClurkan, and a mansion rendered as "Renra"/"RENRA" whose actual name I cannot confirm from the packet. The transcript slice runs slightly past this item and into the read-in of agenda items 73/74 (BL2026-1406), which is a different matter. Committee vote counts come from a spoken committee report, not an official tally sheet.

This summary was written from the meeting transcript and the official action record, then checked by a second pass looking for claims the transcript does not support. Where the two disagree, the record and the recording are what count.

See this item in the full agenda for August 18, 2026 →

History

Passed on third reading as amended August 18, 2026 Metropolitan Council

Official record

The bill was approved with an amendment by the Planning and Zoning Committee. Council Member Parker moved that the bill be passed on third reading, which motion was properly seconded. Council Member Parker offered Amendment No. 1 and moved that it be adopted, which motion was seconded and approved by a voice vote of the Council. Council Member Parker moved that the bill be passed on third reading as amended, which motion was seconded and approved by the following vote: Yes (37): Suara, Porterfield, Evans-Segall, Allen, Hill, Kimbrough, Toombs, Gamble, Cortese, Parker, Benedict, Harrell, Hancock, Webb, Eslick, Evans, Bradford, Gregg, Welsch, Vo, Cash, Kupin, Horton, Taylor, Weiner, Druffel, Preptit, Johnston, Nash, Benton, Ellis, Sepulveda, Rutherford, Styles, Lee, Ewing, and Spain; No (0); Abstain (0).

See the full August 18, 2026 agenda →

The filed text for this matter has not been published here yet. It is available on Legistar.