The Tucker City Council held a public hearing at its Sept. 9 meeting regarding long-debated changes to multifamily density, townhome widths, and building heights in several downtown districts.
In a somewhat unusual move, rather than city staff introducing the text amendments, the changes were sponsored by four members of the Tucker City Council – Mayor Frank Auman, Virginia Rece, Roger Orlando, and Cara Schroeder.
“Some of us are wearing different hats here, with it being initiated by four members of the council,” Auman said.
Schroeder explained the rationale behind the text amendments, saying that downtown multifamily development has been stymied by density restrictions.
“There is a balance between keeping our small town feel, which we all want in Tucker, and adding a change to allow for a more diverse and dynamic downtown,” Schroeder said. “We need more people living downtown, working, playing and spending money.”
Schroeder said the proposed changes have the support of the community, potential developers, business owners and the Tucker Downtown Development Authority.
The Tucker Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposal at its Aug/ 15 meeting. A similar amendment failed 6-0 at the city council’s April meeting, spurring changes to the new proposal.
“We believe these steps are incremental steps towards finding the right balance and a shared vision,” Schroeder said
The proposed changes, according to the text amendment, would include:
• Increasing the amount of permitted multifamily density in the DT-2 and DT-3 zoning districts from 24 units per acre to 35 units per acre.
• Reducing the minimum required townhome width requirements from 20 feet to 18 feet.
• Removing minimum building heights in the DT zoning districts and allowing property owners/developers to request additional building height in DT-2 and DT-3 zoning districts with a special land use permit.
After staff members outlined specific implications of the text changes, Councilmember Alexis Weaver questioned the need for a public hearing, seeing that the amendments have the support of the majority of the council.
“Since you have made up your mind, what do you see the purpose of the public hearing is?” she asked the sponsors.
“I disagree that we’ve made up our minds,” Auman replied. “I think it’s clear, I’m speaking for myself, that this kind of thing needs to happen, but there’s room for modifications to it.”
Weaver countered that the sponsors’ remarks seemed to imply that the other council members “didn’t have the passion or concern in this.”
“We might not always agree, but we all have the passion for the community, and did not mean to imply that at all,” Rece said.
Other council members reiterated the need for public input, saying that they welcomed feedback and possible changes to the amendments based on them.
The council will take up the measure again at its October meeting.
In other action,
- The council approved $138,000 for the purchase of an LED/video scoreboard that had been discussed in previous meetings;
- Held a public hearing on the continuation of a Special Land Use Permit for a multi-family development at 2247 and 2251 Northlake Parkway. Developers of the project said financing at this time is impossible to procure.
- Held another public hearing on a modification in zoning to allow for a place of worship at 6430 Lawrenceville Highway.
