HomeMy WebLinkAboutTA24-05 PB Staff ReportTA24-05 PB Staff Report 12.5.2024
STAFF REPORT FOR TA24-05
TEXT AMENDMENT REQUEST
REQUEST SUMMARY
Case Number: TA24-05
Request:
To amend Section 4.4.4, Table 5.1.2.A, Section 5.4.5, Section 5.4.6, Section 2.3, Section 4.3.2,
and Table 4.2.1 of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) related to
Accessory Dwelling Units, parking ratios for warehouses, parking lot landscaping, street-yard
requirements, and mixed-use residential development.
Applicant: Subject Ordinances:
New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
Purpose & Intent
The key intent of this amendment is the following:
• Ensure Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) standards comply with NC General Statute
requirements.
• Adjust the parking ratio requirement for the use of Warehouse so it is better aligned with
the needs of warehouse developments common in this area.
• Allow administrative changes to the required parking lot landscaping when there are
conflicts with utilities or other required improvements.
• Clarify the applicability of street-yard requirements for commercial land uses that do not
require off-street parking.
• Clarify the mixed-use residential standards for commercial districts by adding a new use
and definition for mixed-use dwellings.
BACKGROUND
Since the completion of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Project in November 2020, staff
have been regularly bringing forward policy neutral amendments to code provisions as part of
ongoing efforts to ensure that the tools of the ordinance remain up to date, are clear to all users of
the code, and continue to work the way they are intended.
Potential amendment concepts were presented to the Planning Board at their October 3, 2024
meeting, and drafts of the amendments were released on November 7 for public comment. Staff
received three public comments related to the amendment:
1. A desire to further reduce the parking ratio for warehouses and to expand the scope of the
maintenance amendment to include parking reductions for additional land uses.
2. Amending the definition of Dwelling, Mixed-Use to allow ground floor residential units in
structures that combine residential and commercial uses.
3. General opposition to the Dwelling, Mixed-Use and Mixed-Use Development standards.
TA24-05 PB Staff Report 12.5.2024
As a note, all amendments are discrete, and the Board may move forward with only some of them
without impacting other proposed provisions in the case that particular amendments are determined
to need additional consideration or staff research.
Accessory Dwelling Unit Standards (ADUs)
NC General Statute 160D-702 enables local governments to adopt zoning regulations. Statute also
prevents local governments from adopting building design regulations for any structures subject to
regulation under the NC Residential Code for One- and Two-Family Dwellings except in specific
circumstances such as homes in designated historic districts.
The NC Residential Code does not make construction code distinctions between primary and
accessory (secondary) homes on parcels of land. Both are considered single-family homes under the
Residential Code.
Currently, Section 4.4.4.A Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) of the UDO contains two provisions that
regulate the size and building materials for ADUs. The proposed amendment would remove the
following two sections from the UDO:
• Removed: Section 4.4.4.A.8 states the total gross floor area for an accessory dwelling unit
shall not exceed 1,200 square feet.
• Removed: Section 4.4.4.A.17 states Mobile homes, RVs, shipping containers, and
manufactured homes shall not be permitted as accessory dwelling units.
Warehouse Parking Requirements
Past Requirements
Before November 2020, the county’s Off-Street Parking Standards included all industrial,
manufacturing, and warehousing uses into one category which required the following parking:
Before November 2020:
Table 5.1.4: Off-Street Parking Standards
Use Required Off-Street Parking
Industrial or Manufacturing
Establishment or Warehouse
1.5 parking spaces for every 2 employees
on shift of greatest employment, 1 space for
each managerial personnel, 1 visitor parking
space for every 10 managerial personnel,
and 1 space for each vehicle used directly
in the conduct of business.
TA24-05 PB Staff Report 12.5.2024
Current Requirements
As part of the comprehensive update to the UDO in 2020, Planning staff reviewed the county’s
parking requirements. Staff determined that due to the changing nature of employees on a given
shift, and other market driven employment factors, monitoring employee and managerial personnel
on a site-by-site basis reduced a property’s ability to efficiently change uses and meet local
requirements.
As a result of that analysis, the county adopted new parking standards in 2020:
Current Requirements:
Table 5.1.2.A: Minimum Off-Street Parking
Use Required Off-Street Parking
Warehousing
1.5 / 1,000 square feet
Parking based on a ratio rather than the number of employees ensures warehouses have uniform
parking and allows buildings to be reused without additional staff review or required changes to
existing parking.
Planning staff has been applying the 1.5 / 1,000 square feet parking requirement for warehouses
since November 2020. The UDO currently requires the following minimum parking for different
example sizes of warehouses:
Example Warehouse Size Required Parking
10,000 sf 15
20,000 sf 30
50,000 sf 75
100,000 sf 150
250,000 sf 375
500,000 sf 750
1,000,000 sf 1,500
Staff Analysis
In recent months staff have received feedback from the development community that the current
parking standards require more parking than is necessary for a warehouse use.
Staff researched the parking requirements of surrounding local governments and several of the top
jurisdictions in the state for industrial and warehousing jobs. Of the 11 jurisdictions researched, four
base their parking on the number of employees while seven of the jurisdictions use a parking ratio
based on building square footage.
Using an example of a 50,000 square foot warehouse with 50 employees at the largest shift,
Planning staff determined that New Hanover County required the largest number of parking spaces
compared to the other 11 jurisdictions:
TA24-05 PB Staff Report 12.5.2024
Jurisdiction Example 50,000 sf
and 50 Employees
New Hanover County 75
Wilmington 50
Forsyth County 50
Catawba County 30
Columbus County 25
Wake County 25
Guilford County 20
Greensboro 16.5
Charlotte / Mecklenburg 12.5
Pender County 10
Brunswick County 10
Durham County 10
A review of 15 warehouse projects showed that generally, projects under 20,000 square feet
provide parking above the county’s minimum requirement. However, as warehouse projects increase
in size, parking needs begin to go down, evidenced by the increase in parking studies to reduce
parking.
Square Footage Parking Required Parking Provided
8,000 sf 12 14
8,800 sf 13 17
8,800 sf 13 17
10,000 sf 15 18
10,000 sf 15 18
10,000 sf 15 17
10,000 sf 15 23
12,500 sf 19 23
20,160 sf 22 30
21,000 sf 32 33
22,040 sf 33 42
32,990 sf* 49 25
62,437 sf* 94 89
425,250 sf 400 400
509,000 sf* 764 244
*Parking Study Reduction
TA24-05 PB Staff Report 12.5.2024
Staff divided the 15 warehouse examples into three categories and analyzed the average square
footage of the buildings, parking actually provided by the development and determined the
average parking ratio for each size category:
Warehouse Size Average
Square Feet
Average Parking
Required
Average Parking
Provided
Average
Parking Ratio
0 – 20,000 sf 9,700 14.6 18 1.8 / 1,000
20,001 – 250,000 sf 31,700 46 44 1.3 /1,000
250,001 + sf 467,125 582 322 0.68 / 1,000
Proposed Changes:
Using the average parking ratios based on warehouse development since 2020 staff recommend
amending the parking ratios by adding a scaled parking requirement that reduces parking as
building square footage increases.
Warehouse Size Average
Parking Ratio
Proposed
Amendment
0 – 20,000 sf 1.8 / 1,000 1.5 / 1,000
20,001 – 250,000 sf 1.3 /1,000 1 / 1,000
250,001 + sf 0.68 / 1,000 1 / 2,000
Public Comment:
Staff initiated maintenance amendments are intended to ensure that the tools of the ordinance
remain up to date, are clear to all users of the code, and continue to work the way they are
intended.
Larger questions around county policy and broader changes to sections of the ordinance are outside
the scope, purpose, and staff’s role in bringing maintenance amendments to the board for
consideration.
Staff received one public comment related to the warehouse parking amendment. The comment
stated a preference for a reduced parking ratio for not only warehouses but also all industrial,
manufacturing, and self-storage uses. The request would result in changes to approximately 30 uses
listed in the UDO.
Due to the larger scale of the request and additional research and analysis necessary to determine
whether the change is needed for those additional uses, staff did not include the requested parking
ratio changes in the proposed amendment.
Such changes can be initiated in the future through direction from the Board of Commissioners,
county management, or through citizen-initiated applications to amend the UDO.
TA24-05 PB Staff Report 12.5.2024
Parking Lot Landscaping
Administrative flexibility allows changes to required landscaping standards when there are conflicts
with easements, utilities, or other required improvements or unique features of a project.
Currently the UDO grants staff flexibility to accept administrative modifications to Transitional
buffers, Street Yard buffers, and Foundation Plantings.
Staff do not currently have the same administrative flexibility for parking lot landscaping. Examples
of parking lot landscaping include trees in parking islands and landscaping between parking lots.
The proposed amendment uses existing language that grants staff flexibility for other landscaping
sections to allow staff level administrative modifications to parking lot landscaping standards as
well.
Street Yard Standards
Currently street yard landscaping is required for changes of use whenever additional off-street
parking is required.
There are four commercial land uses that do not have minimum parking requirements:
• Bus and Taxi Terminal
• Commercial Parking Lot or Facility
• Recreational Vehicle and Boat Trailer Storage Lot
• Other Intensive Industrial Uses
Because they do not have minimum parking requirements, these land uses would be exempt from
street yard requirements.
The proposed amendment adds that new or expanding commercial land uses that require new
vehicle parking or storage areas are also required to provide street yard landscaping.
Mixed-Use Developments
Before 2020, the Zoning Ordinance was a standalone document. The requirements for mixed-use
developments were listed in Article 7: Provisions for Uses Allowed as Special Uses, Section 72-38:
Residential Uses within Commercial Districts.
The Zoning Ordinance and the other standalone County development regulations were combined
into the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) in 2020. This required that the documents be
reformatted, and this provision was added to the use specific standards included in Section 4.3 of
the UDO. To find the requirements for mixed use developments, users would go to the requirements
for each type of dwelling unit (single-family, attached, dual unit attached, etc) then get redirected
to Section 4.3.2.2 Dwellings, Multi-Family which listed the requirements for both multi-family
dwellings and mixed-use developments.
Staff found this has resulted in some confusion for ordinance users. While Section 4.3.2.2 includes a
description and intent for a mixed-use development, the ordinance does not specifically include a
definition of the term.
TA24-05 PB Staff Report 12.5.2024
The intent of the proposed amendment is to remain policy neutral by maintaining the current
ordinance requirements for mixed-use developments in New Hanover County. The amendment
creates a new dwelling unit type specifically for mixed-use developments, definitions for both
mixed-use dwellings and mixed-use developments, and moves the existing mixed-use development
standards from the multi-family dwelling section to a separate, distinct section of the ordinance.
Public Comments
Staff received two public comments regarding the mixed-use dwelling and mixed-use development
amendments.
• The first was related to the proposed definition of Dwelling, Mixed-Use. The comment
suggested that mixed-use dwellings allow residential units on the ground floor of buildings
that contained residential and commercial uses.
Staff considered the request and determined it would constitute a change in the county’s
existing policy on mixed-use development. The purpose of staff’s recommended amendment
is to clarify the county’s existing policies and procedures for mixed-use development. As a
result, the proposed change was not incorporated into the amendment.
• The second comment was in general opposition citing concern that the change would restrict
the ability for single-family homes to be built on B-2 parcels in the Seabreeze area.
Historically New Hanover County has not permitted residential development in a commercial
zoning district unless it was part of a mixed-use development. The proposed amendment
does not change any of the current requirements or procedures for establishing a mixed-
use development in a commercial district. The intent is to provide additional clarity to ensure
applications for mixed-use projects meet the county’s requirements.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
The proposed text amendment is attached, with red italics indicating new language and
strikethrough indicated text that is to be removed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested amendment and suggests the following motion:
I move to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County
Unified Development Ordinance to ensure accessory dwelling unit standards comply with state
statutes, adjust the parking ratio for the use of warehouse, allow administrative modifications to
parking lot landscaping, and to clarify street yard requirements and mixed-use residential
standards for commercial districts. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purpose and intent of the
2016 Comprehensive Plan because it provides up-to-date zoning tools. I also find
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the proposed amendment reasonable and in the public interest
because it provides for clear and effective ordinance standards.
TA24-05 PB Staff Report 12.5.2024
Subject Articles and Sections
• Article 4 Uses and Use-Specific Standards
o Section 4.4.4 Standards for Specified Accessory Uses and Structures
o Section 4.3.2 Residential Uses
o Table 4.2.1 Principal Use Table
• Article 5 General Development Standards
o Table 5.1.2.A Minimum Off-Street Parking
o Section 5.4.5 Parking Lots
o Section 5.4.6 Street Yard Standards
• Article 2 Measurements and Definitions
o Section 2.3 Definitions and Terms