The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTA24-05 PB Public Comments1 Farrell, Robert From:Brad Schuler <bschuler@paramounte-eng.com> Sent:Wednesday, November 20, 2024 4:26 PM To:Farrell, Robert Cc:Roth, Rebekah Subject:Public Comment - TA24-05 Warehouse Parking Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Robert, Thanks for researching the warehousing parking standards and proposing a standard that better aligns with the parking needs for these businesses. Overall, I am supportive of reducing the required parking for warehouses as the current standard far exceeds what is needed and either results in unnecessary impervious surface or additional work on the property owner by having to conduct a parking demand study. I do feel however that the proposed amendment could be improved by 1) further reducing the proposed parking standard to align more with other communities, and 2) by also recommending parking reductions to manufacturing and mini-warehousing uses. As presented to the Planning Board, the current parking standard would require 75 spaces for a 50,000 square foot warehouse, which is the highest of the 12 jurisdictions listed. The proposed standard would only reduce the required parking for the same building to 50 spaces, which still would be tied for the highest required of the 12 jurisdictions listed. In addition, it is important to note that Wilmington parking standards for non-residential uses are maximums and not minimums. The 50 spaces listed for Wilmington would be the maximum allowed, allowing the business to be approved with any amount of parking less than that. When removing New Hanover County’s and Wilmington’s standards, the average required parking for a 50,000sf warehouse would equate to 21 spaces or about 1 space per 2,400sf. 2 Secondly, manufacturing and mini-warehousing uses should also have their parking standards reduced. The vast majority of the manufacturing uses listed in the UDO require the same parking standard of 1.5 spaces per 1,000sf. While I definitely understand staff’s desire to have a parking standard based on square feet, the parking needed for these businesses is largely based on the number of employees. The current standard does not accurately reflect this and thus may result in unneeded parking. In addition, parking demand studies would likely use employee count or similar buildings approved in other jurisdictions with lower parking standards to justify the need for less parking. It is important to note that the County’s previous parking standard for industrial uses was mostly based on the number of employees and there have been no parking issues to my knowledge along the 421 corridor or in our industrial parks. Simply put, businesses seem to be aware of the amount of parking they need for their specific operations. In addition, of the other 10 jurisdictions listed above with minimum parking standards, most of the manufacturing/industrial standards are based on employee count or have large square footage standards: 1. Winston-Salem/Forsyth County a. Manufacturing A, B, C i. 0.67 spaces per employee on largest shift + 1 space per vehicle used in the operation 2. Catawba County a. Manufacturing, processing and assembly i. 0.6 spaces per employee on largest shift 3. Columbus County a. Industrial uses i. 1 parking space for each 2 employees on the largest shift 4. Wake County a. Manufacturing, Production and Industrial Service i. 1 space per 2 employees on the shift of maximum employment plus 1 space for every truck to be stored or stopped simultaneously 5. Guilford County a. Manufacturing i. 0.67 spaces per employee on peak shift + 1 per 200sf of retail sales or customer service area + 1 per vehicle used in operations 6. Greensboro a. Light/Heavy Industrial i. Up to 20,000sf: 1 space per 2,000sf ii. 20,001+ sf: 1 per 3,030sf 7. Charolotte/Mecklenburg a. Industrial Uses i. Up to 40,000 sf: ranges from 1 space per 1,000sf to 1 space per 2,000sf ii. 40,000+ sf: ranges from 1 space per 2,500sf to 1 space per 4,000sf 8. Pender County a. Heavy/Light Industrial i. 1 space per 1,000sf floor area 9. Brunswick County a. Heavy/Light Industrial i. 1 space per 1,000sf floor area 10. Durham a. Heavy/Light Industrial i. 1 space per 1,000sf floor area As for mini-warehouse/self-storage facilities, the current standard of 0.5 spaces per 1,000sf of rentable storage area far exceeds what is needed for these facilities. I first became aware of the warehousing parking issue when our firm was designing a mini-warehouse facility on Market Street. That facility would have required 49 parking spaces and, through the parking demand study option, was approved with just 10 parking spaces 3 (approx. 80% decrease). When examining other storage facilities along Market Street, we found that 1 space was provided per approximately 11,000sf of building area. Thank you for consideration on this matter. Brad Schuler, AICP Paramounte Engineering, Inc. | 122 Cinema Drive | Wilmington, NC 28403 Office: (910) 791-6707 | Cell: (252) 531-9971 | Fax: (910) 791-6760 | www.paramounte-eng.com 1 Farrell, Robert From:Allison Engebretson <aengebretson@paramounte-eng.com> Sent:Wednesday, November 20, 2024 10:04 AM To:Farrell, Robert Cc:Brad Schuler Subject:RE: Mixed Use Dwelling ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Robert, Thanks for the follow up. It sounds like you want to make the ordinance a little easier to create mixed use buildings. Our question is why mixed-use buildings need regulation on where commercial and residential units exist in a shared building. We have commercial and ground floor units proposed in one mixed-use building. This helps meet ADA standards/ regulations and it support aging residents not have to negotiate steps. So, it sounds like we have to remove those residential units or make it a separate building altogether. That seems odd. Thanks, Allison Allison Engebretson, RLA Paramounte Engineering, Inc. | 122 Cinema Drive | Wilmington, NC 28403 Office: (910) 791-6707 | Cell: (910) 620-7262 | Fax: (910) 791-6760) | www.paramounte-eng.com From: Farrell, Robert <rfarrell@nhcgov.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2024 9:01 AM To: Allison Engebretson <aengebretson@paramounte-eng.com> Cc: Brad Schuler <bschuler@paramounte-eng.com> Subject: Mixed Use Dwelling Good morning, Following up from our meeting yesterday, there was a comment made about the proposed maintenance amendment. Currently the UDO defines “Mixed-Use Residential” as “a structure that combines a commercial unit or unit(s) with a separate residential dwelling unit or units located on any floor except the ground floor.” StaƯ is proposing to delete that and replace it with “Dwelling, Mixed Use” with the proposed definition of “Any dwelling unit type listed in the Unified Development Ordinance that is part of a mixed-use development. Mixed Use Dwellings may be separate from commercial uses within the same development or combined with a commercial unit or units with a separate residential dwelling unit or units located on any floor except the ground floor.” Does that help clarify that mixed use developments would allow residential dwellings as separate units from a commercial building, but if included in a commercial structure would be required on the second floor or above? Or is there concern that residential should also be allowed on the ground floor in a combined residential / commercial building? Thanks, 1 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Wednesday, November 20, 2024 6:48 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; wbiddle@nhcgov.com; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; lott@nhcgov.com Subject:Online Form Submission #15467 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Katherine Last Name Tylee Address 1056 Seabreeze Rd South City WILMINGTON State NC Zip Code 28409 Email Kmtylee@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. PB Meeting - TA24-05 - UDO Maintenance Amendment What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment In regard to the proposed addition of the terminology "mixed- use dwellings" and the elimination of "single-family dwelling" via Special Permit in a Commercial district: I think that this would hurt residential development in the area of Seabreeze, between Seabreeze Rd S and Elm St area. To add a requirement that sidewalks are installed is just silly in an area that has not a single sidewalk, no pedestrian walkways at all, not even a shoulder on the road. This is a big reason why I feel that the Community Mixed Use place type is wrong for this 2 area. We are a residential area with a bunch of obsolete, impractical B-2 lots predating zoning but given theat zoning designation when zoning began in 1971. This amendment seems to me to make it more difficult for this neighborhood to grow residential and that is not something I can support. Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Field not completed. File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.