|
Sylva officials set hearings on proposed zoning amendments
By Emily Elders
Sylva officials will listen to comments and concerns from town residents about two controversial zoning issues during a public hearing next Thursday, Feb. 1.
A 6:30 p.m. session is planned to discuss proposed residential planned unit development overlays that have already been reviewed and approved for recommendation by the planning board.
The proposed overlay would allow the town to take applications for higher-density, multi-family housing developments with almost complete control over the standards and regulations of each. After their review, the overlay would be placed only over the parcel the developer applied for, with existing residential zoning remaining in place for surrounding parcels.
This RPUD overlay would add two and a half pages to the existing ordinance, which already contains a mixed-use development overlay. To date, only the stalled Grindstaff Cove development has been approved for that zoning.
At last week’s work session, some board members showed support for the idea.
“Sylva is really growing and we need some affordable housing,” said Mayor Brenda Oliver. “At least this way, we (would) have control over what happens.”
Board member Stacy Knotts agreed.
“This is just a good tool for us to use to keep our options open,” she said. “We’ve got the applications coming in, but right now we don’t have any way to handle them.”
However, both town attorney Eric Ridenour and board member Maurice Moody raised some doubts.
“This just doesn’t make sense to me,” said Ridenour. “I really don’t see a need for it, and if there’s no need, why should we make more laws?”
Moody said he opposed the RPUD because it would allow more development.
“People don’t move here because they want to live in housing like that,” he said. “People here like to have their own space. You can’t just go in and start putting developments next to people’s houses.”
The RPUD proposal, which would be added to Section 1100 of the ordinance, provides some basic restrictions while leaving most of a project’s specifics to the discretion of the board. Some requirements developers would have to meet before applying include a minimum acreage of 5 acres, single ownership or management, a six-story limit on building height, and the dedication of 1,000 square feet of open space per dwelling unit.
The proposal is in line with Sylva’s Master Plan, a summary of town goals which was approved by the board in 2003. The RPUD’s primary goals, as stated in the ordinance, are to provide for the most efficient use of land resources, remain in harmony with the character of the existing district, and provide flexibility and innovation in the design and location of structures.
Sylva’s Master Plan states that the town will develop new land-use tools to complement existing tools in promoting compatible land-use projects, and allow flexibility in site design in order to encourage compatible, higher-density residential and commercial development.
A 6:15 p.m. hearing is also scheduled. That session has been called to discuss an amendment to the zoning ordinance regarding sign usage by car dealerships in city limits. It was prompted by two recent applications from Allison’s Chevrolet.
Though officials have denied Allison’s petition for a variance once before, and their most recent application died for lack of a motion at last Thursday’s meeting, they agreed that some solution should be proposed for car dealers who desire more than one sign.
Ridenour drew up a suggested amendment that would allow car dealers with a minimum amount of acreage to mount two signs, one indicating they sell new cars and one advertising used cars. Only franchised dealers who sell both types of cars would be eligible under the proposed ordinance, and the lot size would have to reach or exceed 1.5 acres of paved space.
Ridenour’s suggested amendment would treat the three existing new and used car dealerships (Andy Shaw, Scott-Rodes and Allison’s) even-handedly and would include any future in-town auto dealerships, he wrote in a letter to town officials.
The amendment would be added to Section 405(3), and would restrict the new signs to size and height specifications already stated in current ordinances.
Both meetings will be at Town Hall.
|
