HomeMy WebLinkAboutParkingQ*vv<\\&-
Citadel Self Storage Development
Parking Justification
Citadel Self Storage is a national developer of self storage properties across the country. Over
the past five years, the group has developed and built over 60O000 SF of self storage including several
multi-story facilities. Company insiders have built and developed over 1mm sf of self storage in Texas as
well. Citadel has placed the Center Drive parcel under contract to develop a 2 story, 100,000 square foot
self storage facility . We have reviewed the county parking requirements and noticed that the parking
requirements for self storage {mini-warehouses} are very restrictive which would require nearly 50
spaces at our project. Our site plan proposes 12 parking spaces in front of the sales office plus ample
parking/unloading area behind a secured gate to provide for customers to load and unload their
belongings for storage. We feel that the current parking requirement is based on outdated information
and a misunderstanding of the storage industry and would like to present our experience as justification
for our smaller parking count at the facility.
Self storage is typically one of the lowest traffic generating real estate uses across any real
estate class (see provided articles for reference). Storage customers typically visit the storage office
once or twice during the leasing process to receive property information and then to complete the
lease. After the lease is signed, the customer receives a personalized gate code that will allow them to
access the secure perimeter gate where they will bring their belongings to one of the unloading areas, of
which we have provided 4 on this site plan. Typically, customers will load their storage unit over the
course of a few visits and then most customers will visit their unit once per month or less. Once they
have leased their unit there is no reason for them to visit the office, so they will typically enter the
secured gate and park near the entrance closest to their unit. The 12 parking spaces by the office are
typically only used by prospective tenants looking for information or signing a lease. ln reality, a good
day of traffic at a self storage facility is receiving visits from 5 new customers. Our best days ever have
been no more than 10 visits from prospective customers. Typically, we will only have one employee on
property. Given that we are open about 8 hours per day {less on weekends}, 12 parking spots in front of
the office is more than sufficient. More important than the dedicated parking spaces in front of the
office, are the unloading areas around the building. On this site plan, we have 4 entrances to the facility
and a -30' wide asphalt drive. This allows sufficient room for 4+ vehicles to have ample space to unload
at each entrance which equates to 16+ additional parking spaces for the facility. The architect calculates
19 parallel parking spaces along the pavement for access to the building. The reality is that the majority
of customers are unloading their belongings into their storage unit and then infrequently visiting the
contents, if at all, until they empty their storage unit upon vacating the premises. The average length of
stay for a storage tenant at our facilities is well over a year. As you can see, there is not much traffic at
the facility and plenty of loading/unloading/parking space in addition to the 12 parking spaces in front of
the office. We feel that we have provided more than sufficient parking once the use of secured unloading
areas/entrances are understood.
I have provided several articles that demonstrate the low traffic counts generated from self
storage and the resultant impact on storage parking requirements. I have also provided site plans for 3
of our previous multi-story self storage facilities. Our Nashville facility is 140,000 5F (almost twice the
size of this proposed concept) and has 12 parking spaces and a much smaller unloading footprint. Our
Louisville facility is 3 story, 135,000 SF with over 1,000 units and has 10 parking spaces and a smaller
unloading footprint, and our Charleston facility (which was condemned) was approved for 11 parking
spaces and a small unloading area for a 3 story, 130,000 SF storage facility. Each of these 3 facilities
were significantly larger than what we are proposing here and had a similar number of parking spaces
and a much smaller unloading area, but are typical of what we see in new generation, multi-story
storage facilities. We are confident that we have designed this project with ample parking in front of
the office and more than ample unloading/parking area for customers behind the secured gate. We
are long term storage developers, owners and operators, and we build our facilities
with the customer's convenience at the forefront of our design and layout concepts. We appreciate your
consideration of our storage development history and experience and hope that we can compromise on
the parking requirements with this supplied information. I am more than happy to discuss further on the
phone or answer any questions that you may have.
Thank you,
Dan Kunau, VP Development
Citadel Self Storage
t
qi:
*'i.ta
{..!l
,;.,-i:>l-----:rd-*rD-.; ir|>
a
v
3'i.
I
=
t;
.i:
i
i
fr.*
,F;* t'
t'
$
+"
\
:*
&
:
,f'
s
ii
.. -i.
.!
tl
,a'tl
,;'
:;'
ai
,
!
:;
,E.
1
I
i*
l€:. -
ry
l,i .t
t'-h
I thr0[gh
[ $elf $tomgo Intitlemgnt ]llanual
BU
$teRhen R. Bourne & [o$er $, Waldon
SELF
STORAGE
ASSOCIATTON
www.selfstorage.org
*
fr?,
-'t
h
I
t
(,
\,
.LN
{. . r"
.,** tt
T
t't',I
I
rl'h.tt^
t
b
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1f
I
Il
I
I
I
I
I
u!l
t\
aI
.'b'lII
:*'
*
p
,\
t
ri
f,t
*J
L{
{t
d
sct
\
t
\'
III
t
'a
tt
$rtr-
l"
tf
{€
1"+'u
;"
t,o&
f
ctr
o
C'E'
IE
o
tt
6
IDt
=3
z,()
E
C.}oU'g,
EgEiEEEiiiiii
gEiFEEgiiEEIE
lIgg*EgF$E$g
ffii*gglfiEF
f;estFgcstE':
*EsgeEtEFg;gs;EEeig;FE;:3;
ggisgieiligag
a.t
ti
ita lt "i tft
priate tirne in the future. 'Ibe Self Starter Basic Zoning Reuieu farm
witl help you identify and quantify some of these issues.
Tratfic Generation
One of rhe mosc widely perpetuated myths about selfstorage is that
ir generates a lot of rrafic, The reasons for this misconception are
nor clear; there cor"rld be a strong correlarion benveen this belief
and the observable number of garage doors, or it could be rhe large
number of units in most faciliries, as in one u.nit = nne c/tt', and the
infrequency which mosr customers access iheir units is not raken
inco account. Regardless of che reason, every study thac has been
conducted has proved this assumprion false. Time and again, self
storage has proven ro be one of rhe lowest rraffic generacing uses in
real esste developmenr.
For the most part, planners and local governments look to rhe
Institure of Tlansportation Engineers (ITE) for national stan-
dards that rhey use in estimating trip generation for particular land
uses, which are then used in calculating traffic inrpaccs and parking
requirements, The most recent ITE standards are contained in the
2003 T?ip Generatiorz, 7t' Edition publication (a copy of this study
can be oained through the ITE \Web site). Based on a definition
of m.ini-wareltouse and review of national facilides, ITE suggests
a rrip generation rate of 2.5 average daily rrips per 1,000 square
feer of fioor area for self srorage facilities. The rip generacion rate
for afternoon peak-hour rrips is.29 trips per 1,000 square feet of
floor area. (In general, afternoon peak-hour crips rend to represent
approximarely l07o of average daily trips for most land use catego-
ries.) Many communiries refer to these faccors in estimating traffic
impacrs and parking ne eds for self srorage facilities'
Chapter 3: Hot Buttons for Self Storage 39
somerimes the opposirion orobsrrucrion is inrenrional and direcred
by a local official, group or powerful individual, and somerimes ic is
the result of misinformation and ignorance. In eirher case, the ques-
rion is the same : how do you overcome the objecrions or comply
rvith dre code requiremen$ while mainraining rhe financial and
operarional viabiliry ofyour faciliry? 107e will study the various sreps
in rhe entirlemenr process in rhe nexc chapter; at this time we rvill
srudy whar land use issues you could be forced to deal with during
chat process.
Ir is irnporranr ro be able to recognize rvhich requirements could
add cost ro your projecr withour adding bene6r, or rvhich ones
could severely inhibit the success ofyour business operarions in the
shon or long term, versus requiremenrs rhat are applicable ro all
developments and are nor based on misinformarion. In our expe-
rience, rve have idenrified rhe follorving as the lnosr comm on hot-
batton issues rhar often include exrreme land use requiremenm for
self srorage or are used resrict self srorage developmenr enrirely:
. Traffic generation
r On-site parking
. Restricred zoning
r Exisring non-conforming use
r Visibiliry & idenrifying fearures
. Landscaping&bufferzones
. RV & boat srorage
. Residenr manager
. Job generation
It will be mosr helpful for you co revierv this chaprer and become
familiar with drese issues before you engage rhe local planning
deparrment in any serious conversarions about your project. In rhis
way you rvill be able ro idenrify any porenrial issues as rhey come up,
rl'ren isolare them and knock them down one by one ar rhe appro-
38 Zig Zagging Through Zoning
The ITE report lism several different uses and their related traffic-
generation numbers. This chart will be very useful should you face
this objection. Ref,erencing data from the ITE studies, it can clearly
be sholn in a one-page review rhar self srorage is rhe lowest rraffic
generaror by far among most office, retail and commercial uses. As
noted above, rraffic and parking requiremen$ are closely related,
and we will revierv parking requirements in the next section'
$pecial Considerations
There are situations rhat could create a more restricrive traffic flow
irrto or our of your site, such as a righr-in / right-our only' or a
one-way in or our. It is often the case
drar this requirement has li*le to do
wirh the amount oftraffic your project
generates, but rarher relates ro the
traffic engineering design on the
surrounding surface streecs. Such
restrictions are generally non-nego-
riable, and atrernpting to ger a variance
on these requiremenrs on the basis
thar a self storage doesn't generate
much rrafic is usually a losingproposition, and furthermore rvill do
linle ro endear your developmellr to the local planning officials. In
other rvords, it is besc to pick your batrles lvisely.
Parking Ratios
Required parking rarios for self srorage facilities are often the most
hody conresred issues during the enuitlemenr process. The reason is
pretty simple: the more on-site parking a development is required
ro include, the more land is required to suPPort that develop-
Chapter 3: Hot Buttons for Self Storage 41
ment (or rhe less building area can be buik on rhe same parcel).
Obviously, land costs being what rhey are these days, every devel-
ope r rvill need ro maximize rhe use of rheir land and an exrremely
high requiremenr for parking spac€s gready affecrs thar maximiza-
rion. In Chapter 1: Self storage us. tbe Land Ue Code, we looked
ar a 2007 SSA survey of local governmenrs ro observe horv rhey
regulate self scorage; in this scudy, ir can be seen how communities
rake a variery ofapproaches co rhe developmenr of required parking
ratios. Some communiries require parking based on the number oF
storage units (e.g., one space per 100 units). Orhers require parking
based on the size of the srorage area (e.g., one space per 2,000 square
feet of storage floor area). Anorher set adds on parking for a resi-
dent manager (usually trvo spaces) and any office space on rhe sire
(commoniy one space per 350 square feer of office space). In order
to quanrify che impacc of these various calcularions, we are going
to use a rypical faciliry as an example and apply rhe various regula-
tions to that facility. For this purpose, a facility rvich rhe follorving
characreristics is examined: a sire rvidr 45,000 square feer ofsrorage
area, 300 individual srorage unirs, 700 square fe et of office space,
and a dwelling unit for a resident manager. For communiries thar
reported parking reguiremen$, here are rhe parking spaces thar
rvould be required for rhis typical facility in each localiry:
Community
Horv Many Parking Spaces
Would Be Required for this
Prototype?
Milwaukee
Santa Rosa
Apex
Marthervs
Pimsburgh
Bakersfield
Bangor
Nfslvport Nervs
No minimum requiremenr
No rninimum requiremenr
I
1
2
3
4
4
42 Zig Zagging Through Zoning
Ft. Meyers
Garden Grove
Greensboro
Oklahoma City
Iredell County
Chapel Hill
Plano
Honolulu
Litde Rock
Lowell
Baron Rouge
Columbia
Ventura
Gainesville
5
5
5
9
l5
r9
20
^aLJ
28
') c,
30
32
45
48
Every community is differenr, of course, bur rhis variarion in
parking requirements is significant, and illusrrares rhe need for
standard infonnarion thar communides can consider when drafting
zoning regularions, parricularly in lighr of the increasing ernphasis
in communities regarding environmEnral protection, storrn warer
managemenr, and incentives ro reduce automobile trips.
To illusrrare the changing rvays cornrnuniries are regularing parking
for self storage facilities we are going ro look ar rwo examples:
Midrvay, CA and San Diego, CA. First, as a resulr of a utilization
srudy of rhe exisring faciliries in rhe communiry in2AA4, Midway,
CA decide d on a parking requirement of one space per 8,600 sqlrare
feet, In rhe prororype faciliry alrove, thac rvould rranslare into a
reguiremenr for six parkingspaces. Consider rhac in lighc of rhe facc
that some communiries have parking requiremenc for self storage
facilides in the range of one space per 500 square feer of floor area.
In rhe prototypical example, that rranslares inro a requirement of
90 parking spaces.
Chapter 3: Hot Buttons for Self Storage 43
In rhe orher example, the ciry of San Diego amended im zoning
regulations in 2006 for exacrly this reason. The pre-exisring parking
requirement for self srorage facilides had been one parking space
per 1,000 square feet of floor area. The city changed the require-
menr ro one parkingspace per 10,A00 square feer of floor area. Here
is language from the report that recommended the change:
The exisdng requirement for all wholesale, distribudon and srorage
uses is I space per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area which rhe City has found
is unreasonably high for self storage faciliries as a specified non-res'
identiel use. The proposed requirement for self storage facilities is I
space per 10,000 sq. ft. plus 3.3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of accessory
office space." (FromJuly 18,2006 report to the California Coastal
Commission.)
For the prototypical example discussed above, this would mean
that, before the San Diego change, the parking requirement would
have been 45 spaces. Under the revised ordinance, the parking
requirement would be seven spaces. Thar is a big difference, and
an illustradon of the kinds of adjustmenrs cornmunities should be
considering.
This change is also being observed in the Northeast. A December
2005 study ofparking requirements and parking space udlization by
the Connecticur Transportation Institute concluded, "Most towns
in the state have very conservative minimum parking requirements.
The towns in our study mandate 2.5 times the amounr of pa*ing
than is acrually used." (Article by Norman \W. Garrick and'Wesley E.
Marshall of che University of Connecticur School of Engineering.)
Threshold for Variance
Although it is difficult to set a standard required parking rado for
self storage drat rvould be appropriare in every instance and accePt-
44 Zig Zagging Through Zoning
able to every jurisdiccion, for purposes of this narrative lve are
going to establish a quanrirative rado thar accs as a threshold for
determining rvherher furrher acrion (i.e. requesting a variance) is
rvarranred" This rhreshold will relare direcdy to che traffic-genera-
tion dara we reviewed the previous section.
The average peak rate of trip generation, according ro the uaffic
studies cired above , is .77 trips per hour per 1000 SF of self storage.
tlfe will consider this the mosr intensive traffic use the average
facility will experience and base the threshold value on this calcula-
tion. Using the average sized facility noted in the example above
as a baseline, dre result would be 9.9 trips per hour. Assuming for
purposes of this exanrple that all those customer trips rvill overlap
rvithin rhe same hour, the parking demand would be ren spaces,
rvhich translates ro one space per 4,500 SF of storage area. It rvould
reasonable ro assume that rhose stalls should all be allocated ro
existing cusromers of rhis faciliry and should be locared behind
the securiry perimeter, and that some minimal parking should be
required for rhe ancillary ases such as retail sales and the residenr
nlanager, lvhere appl icable. Therefore, taken together che quanrita-
tive acrion threshold values would look something like chis:
. Self srorage requirement: I space per 4,500 GSF
r Reail/office requirem€nt: I space per 350 GSF
o Resident manager: I space per living unic
Therefore, applying this formuladon to che exarnple cited above,
rhat facility would be required to have a total of l3 spaces, wirh at
least l0 inside the security perimeter. Appropriately, this value fills
directly in rhe middle of rhe range of the parking rarios as reported
by the ciries idencified in the 2007 SSA survey. In these authors'
experience, requiring 13 sralls for a 45,000 SF faciliry is proporrion-
ately higher than average, bur srill likely ro be accommodated on a
typical site, and therefore, would not automarically be a candidare
for a variance applicarion.
Chapter 3: Hot Buttons for Self Storage 45
St'$'Staragc nrul thc Nlodcnt Commttrrit,tl
AppEFtDrx 3:
TnnFFIg GENERATIoN ArrIaYsTs
TRTTFFIc GeNenATED BY
SELF SroRase FaclLtrlEs
Prrptrrctl Isy:
Ecar t arn i c Cous ul t i uj1 A.rsocin fir
241 E. South$rt At,cttuc', St(. 20ti
'|'etnp*, AZ 85282-5 I 40
OvaRvlew
Econonric Consrrltirrg Associates, Iuc. condlrctecl a
stndy to detennine hou' urtrch h'affic is gieneraterl by
self stora$e. 1'he study tvas pelfbrnrerl lrnder the
spotrsolslrilt of the Self Storage Associatiorr.
Questionnnites !t'e t'e prepared nnd lrlde available to
rrrernbsrs, r\rr irrdependent nualysis ol'tlie rcsrrlts u,as
perfornteel. Ilesponderrts laugecl fron: r'ery srnnll to
very lnrge facilities thrcughout the United States.
Details of our strrcly report fbllorv.
PuRpose
'lhe aim ol'this study is to accurately ureasule iincl
cleteru:iue hou' mucl-t traffic is gerrerated by self
storag€ fncilities. 'l'o this e nd, the Self Storage
Association (SSa; colltrncted rvith Ecorromic
Cortsultirrg,'l'enrpe, AZ, a firm n,ith experieuce in this
field, to conduct an inclependent stucly.
llppRoRcu
The SSA preparecl a stanclnrcl cluestiotrnaire fhat sell
storalle operators could use to recorri traffic data. The
form l,as delivered to all nreniller.s of'tlie SSA and
rvas also publicized on the Internet, in rneetirrgs u'ith
operatol's, aucl through titlier distribution charilrels
[see fonn in Appendix B, Page 8"1).
Completerl questionrraires wer.e retur.necl to the
associaliorr and u,ere providecl to us for analysis" ECA
inspected the questionnaires, obtained adclitional
infbruration by calling respotldellts n'heu dnfa $,ere
irrcnnrplete or requirerl clarilicntion, checkecl lhe
adclition on the forrns, assembled and nnnlyeerl the
rlata arrel provicled this i'eport of tlre results.
Certain questiouuaires \\,e[e not rrsecl in the stucly
fbr a variety of reirsorrs, rvhich inclucled illegibiliry,
tltey u'ere incoutplete or the resporrclent's fhcilitl'rvas
not a typical sclf storage busiuess. 'lhe latter includecl
a eonrbirration self storage arrd offiee rvarehouse arrd
arother rvhich rvns lrrinrarily rin ItV stor.a$e, fol
exaurple. Sincc only one questionnnire rvns received
fbr Canada, it *,as alsri exclucled. Only tncilities that
had seven day a u.eek ltccess \1'sre inclrrded in the
nnalysis, since uearly all of the respourlents !1,€re open
for busirress Sunclay througli Satur.day. 1b inolu(le
others thrrt did llot ol)erilte seven clays a rveeli ryoulcl
have beerr inconsisterrt, in orrr opirrion. Finally, data
rvas basecl on conrputet'ized gate entries during tlre
niontlrs of April through June ol2001.
RrsponrDENT FRoplt-g
"fhis study contained 158 r"rsable reslmnses. lVhile
tlris is a surnll frirction of the 35,000 plus fircilities in
tlte U.S., it is the secoud hr.gest resporlse of nny
publicly available stucly on this subject. ECA
conducted a prior self stornge tralTie anal.ysis on
belrnlf of the Mini-storage lvlessenger nrafazine in
Febmary I996 ("Dispelling the Self'-Storage Tralfic
Ir,lyth") tltnt ryas basecl r:n rlata from over. 250
facilities. The SSA study i$ i:elieverl to be nror.e
representative of the inclustry, because tlris ctrrrent
ciata is based on rhe riverrr€le sized f'acility of 45,000
square f'eet fronr over' $0 cifies in tlre United States.
lhe response in ths enrlier study *'as basecl on
irrfonnation fronr faciiities su:aller than fhe av€rage
project.
'l'he rnode of responclent facilities itr this current
stucly contained 500 to 599 spaces arrrl rrent'ly one-
third (31.65 96 ) had 600 or rnor€ spaces, for example
(see Table 1).
Apperrrlix C - i
Stlf Stornllc nucl tln il{odrn Comrttttttitg
TABLE ]
RESPONDTHTS BY
NUMBER (}F SP,TCES
shou,$ that the mode tvas berrveerr 50,0{10 and 59,999
rerrtable sq. ft. fhe grentesr concentration ol
responclents tvere in the 40,000 to 70,000 rar:$e'
TABLE 3
IIVERAGE SIZ,g OF RESPONDENTS
{lu lil:utrllt Sq. I;'t.)
NUMEER O/o OF TOTAL
SPACES NUMBER 7o OF TOTAL
i00"199
200-299
300-39S
400-499
500-599
600-699
700"799
800-89!)
900-999
I,000- 1099
1,100-1,199
I ,200- I ,2S I
1,300-1,399
1,400- 1,499
1,500- 1,599
1,600- 1,600
1,700-I,79!l
4
7
t')
.tt
4l
23
t2
)tT
4
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
1
1,,JJ
4.43
13,92
21.52.
2s.95
14.56
7.59
2.s3
2.53
r.27
1.27
1.27
158 100.0 9(,
i0,000-19,9sJ9
20,000-29,999
30,000-39,999
40,000-49,999
50,000-59,999
60,000-69,999
70,000.79,999
80,000-89,999
90,000-99,999
100,000- i 09,999
I10,000-119,$99
120,000-129,999
160,000- 169,999
Total
0
0
0
0
0.63
,)
6
l8
29
33
27
l3
l2
I
4
I
l
1
1.92
3.85
11.54
18.59
2i,15
r 7.31
8.33
7.69
5.13
2.56
0.64
0.64
0.64
99.9.c),od "'lbtnl r56
Sotrrct: 'listal urtd llcrtuttn{f'cattzptrtttl /41 Ecortotttit' "I)ocs ttot lotal 1009(' dut lorotttttliull.
C a r t x r I t i r tg1 d,r.sc'cin fes.
The average size of resporrclelrts rvas 59,451 rentable
sq. ft. (see Table 2).
TABLE 2
,IVERAGE SIZE OF RTSPONDENTS
(lu Ruttablc 54 Fr,J
The Western Regiott of the Self Stora$e Associntion
had tlie lar$est truntbet' of'respotrdents, follon'ed by
the Southeast legiort (see Table a).'l'lris is consistent
rvith faci that ihe fot'nter is the lar$est, iu ternts ol
nremberslrip. A list of stntes by SSA l{egion is
lrrovided in Appendix 2
TABLE 4
RESPONSE BY RgGION
NUMBER O/o OF TOTAL
Total Rentnble Sq. irt.
No. of Respondeuts
Average Size
9,279,1l3
156 *
59,481
n'|\uo did uat providt rentalslc sq. Ji.
Sottru': Arcruge computtd bg Et;ottotttic Cottsttltirtll
A.s.socinfr.s.
Reslrorrclents t'acilities ranged iu size lronl 13,000
rentable sq. ft. to over 160,000' An analysis of
responderrts by rerltable sq. ft. is sholt'tt in Table 3. It
Northeast
Cerrtral
Soutlreast
West
'l otal
?<
29
48
5{j
15.82
18.35
30.38
35.44
158
Appendix C - ?
*I)ots rrdrt totul fiI9i' duc to rotnttling.
99.99 o'u *
- 7fi05 EDITION -
Dernand
Self
Se{f Storagc Danand Sndyt 2005 Edition
TAIIE A.42r FnEFEnnED PAYl,tElr:rl tcoNsu
Totol I llldwcrl Soulh
Cosh 13.59{1t.8%IO-3%l4.|Yo
33,8%24.7t 42.5o/"36.6%r8.3%
Voney Order 1,8%.6%1.7%o.sgr
lrcdit Cord 26.4%3 25.9%21.9q,
)ebil Cord
rulomolic deduclion from bonk
9.1%6.8%
4,5%
10.0%
5-Ot6
fnline/tnf6rnel
rotAr too-o.y.too-nqa too.oo4 too-o%to0.o%
TABLE A.rr3: VtSttAitON fREC
'ENtrBY
I
TNEQUENCY OF UNIT VISITATION Tolol Eaulh Wcrl
once 9.m lo.891 4.7%r0.696
15.495 15.3*'t5-o%13.69(
Abouf onco every lwo weeks
rL--.r ----, - -
18.896 16.6t6 23.t16 I 5-69(
34.196 33"O%33.996 32_9%
3 lo 6limes Der yaor 13.6tlo 145%I1.5%I8. tl(;ewer lhon 3 limes oer yaor 9,M 9.896 o,596 7.9%9.2*
?OIAL too.o%too-oqa lo0.o%100-o%loo-oq(
)Nfl
gRIVIHBTIME TO FACIUW ?olol lonhcosl Itllldweei South lVosl
Lesr lhon l0 minules 39.7%33.9%39.8%4l .096 do.8%l0to l9minules 37 _2q"31.6%39.41 40.7%33.1%
2f,la 29 minsles 12.8%94,%12.8%9.6V"14,0%
I lo 44 minules 5.6%8.4S6 5.391 4.7rA 5.6%
45 minulgs or more 4.7%s.E%2.4q,4.O%6-4%
rOTA!roo^o%loo^or|A too.o%loo.o%too-or'A
tenant drta in lheir demo programs. bul
insight into how the product works in the
field is the real test.
If you are still confused afler speaking to
the company's references, closely review
the reports available with each software
package. Do they fit your needs? fue they
specific enough to allow your quick review
of key items but provide all of the detail
rABLE4.r7 Traffic Flow
REGION
Division
Average Number
o{ Vehicles
Entering the
NORTH CENTHAL
East North Central
necessary to audit mistakes or enors? Don'l
be hesitant to ask about additional reports or
formals. Self-storage software is more than
just an accounling package. By its nature it
iauses your business to operate in a specific
fashion. The steps necessary to open the
computer for the day or check out the cosh
drawer and close at night will be dictated by
and large by the software You use'
rABLE 4.r8 Average Number
of Parking Spaces
at FacilitY Office
site information
Other electronis amenities can be even
more confusing. Cameras, alarms, graphics
programs are all great sales tools but they
come at a price. Again visit the trade shows
and speak to the company's representatives.
At most of the shows, company representa-
tives can identify other attendees from your
orea thal use their Product'
Irollk llow
Traffic flow at a particular self-storage
property is govemed ss much by that spe-
iific site's cuslomer profile as by the size of
the development. (See Tuble 4.1?.) When
all else is equal, a large property will have
more customer visits than a similar smaller
self-storage site, The particular ratio of
commercial versus residential customers
can have a significunt impact.on truffic
inside a property.
Although most storuge facilities require
very few parking $pace$ near the office'
specific requirements for parking are typi-
cilly di"tut"d by local ordinance' (See
Table 4. 18.) When faced with a tight locn-
tion that can not accommodate required
parking directly in front of the rental office
i common remedy is to locate additional
spaces in drive aisles.
In situations where excessive parking
spaces are dictated by local municipalities,
many self-storoge operators are situating
those purking spaces in un area where they
can laler be used for boat and RV storage'
This solution may satisfy local requirements
and later add to the facility's bottom line'
lrdllty l{lointeronce
Another factor to consider is that as older
locations are compromised by new product,
they are forced to respond. Mainlaining a
strong, well organized, and professional
appeorance is critical to any location' Those
first few seconds of a prospect's experience
may well determine whether or not they
rent et your property or your cornpetition.
Tables 4,15 and 4'16 represent the usual
ongoing requirements of roof repair, pave-
ment rehabilitation, and painting but of
even mors importance are the significant
enhancements to curb appal, apartments
and offices.
Remember: If there is a recipe for suc-
cess in self-storage, it bdgins wirh a great
localion and is spiced with management
that has the ability to identify and
empathize with the customer. [t1l
16.7
17.4
12,6
13,8
REGION
Division
NORTH CENTRAL
East North Central
West North Central
NOHlHEAST
Middle Atlantic
East South Centr:al
West South Central
SOUTHEAST
Atlantic
WEST
Mountain
Pacific
ALL FACILITIES
Numberol Unib
I lo99
100 to 299
300 to 499
500 to 999
or
Rgntable Square Footnge
Less than 25,000
25,000 to 49.999
50,000 to 74.999
75,000 to 99.999
Market Area
Heavy lnduslrial
Commercial/Betail
Urban/Downtown
Residential
Population of
Surrounding Metro Areas
Less than 25.000
25,000 to 99,999
100,000 to 499;999
500,000 to 999,399
1,000,000 and more
Average Number
of Parkrng Spaces
1
NORTHEAST
Middle Atlantic
New
SOUTH
East South Central
West South Central
SOUTHEAST
South Atlantic
WEST
Mountain
Pacific
ALL FACILITIES
Number of Units
1to99
100 to 299
300 to 499
500 to 999
16.S
163
17"9
11.2
8.7
16.6
10.t
13.3
9.0
19.0
19.1
19.0
24"1
24.1
13.0
13.0
21.7
20.0
23.0
19.9
8.4
16.6
24.'l
39.6
34.9
10.6
11.8
9.8
1
11.4
15.7
11.7
6.5
7.8
32.1
13.0
11.5
7.1
8.8
or mor€
Population of
Sunounding Metro Areas
Less than 25,000
25,000 to 99,999
100,000 to 499,999
500,000 to 999,999
1,000,000 and more
11.3
21.5
29.0
41.6
48.1
20.4
23.1
26.7
20.9
12.8
11.0
12.6
9.6
9.2
-"14.0- _ -
12.3
11.5
9.5
9.1
10.2
12.8
18.5
24.4
24.9
34.4
Bentable Square Footage
Less than 25,000
25,0CI0 to 49,999
50,000 to 74,999
75,000 to 99,999
100,000 or mor€
Heavy lndustrial
CommerciallRetail
UrbanlDowntown
Residential
Rural
Araa
4^n, ccr r ctnDAf:E Al itaNAn 65
SUCCESS STARTS HEREI
well"ting
lltrre-
rcti0n
y are
terior
r fire
,perty
rated
le.
e fire
two-
ed to
into
rrlier,
)ancy
sepa-
.uired
ential
walls
and
: fire
rwell
'ating
r one-
tories
:elow
rated
inter-
, are
rated
'sk of
Ihese
ducts
:d air
rd out
:vator
have
on.
.ora8e
, con-
with
10.2
LB
8.0
11.9
16.7
physical disabilities. To be in compliance
rvith this section of the code, architects and
building designers musl satisfy the follow-
ing requirements:
lito Acterr
l.An "accessible route of travel" must
be provided from public streets or
sidewalks onto the site.
2. Accessing parking spaces mu$t be
provided exclusively for the use of
disabled persons, at a ratio of approx-
imately one disabled parking space
per 25 total parking spaces. At least
one space nrusl be a van-accessible
space. These spaces rnust be located
as close to the building entranc€ as
possible.
3. An "accessible route of travel" must
be provided from the disabled parking
space or space$ to a single primary
building entrance, or to at least 50
percent of multiple building entrances.
Building Actesr
l, ln "self-storage facilities" containing
200 or less individual units, five per-
cent of the units must be accessible,
dispersed among the various space
sizes available,
2.In facilities containing more than 200
units, 10 units nrust be accessible,
plus two percent of the totul number
over 200 musl be dispersed among the
various space sizes available.
3.Toilet rooms must be accessible for
persons in wheelchairs, as well as the
individual fixtures in the toilet room,
4.Drinking founlains, if provided, must
be accessible at a rate of at least 50
percent of the total, with a minimum
of one.
5. Elevators and lifis must be accessible
if providing access to areas rvhere
accessible storage units are located.
Most of the detailed requirements for the
site access and building access specifically
ntted in the IBC are v6ry vague in nature
and defer to other publications, recognizing
the fact that most jurisdictions now either
have some fomr of state disabled access larv
in effect, or have adopted the federal
American Disabilities Act (ADA) standard$
lor use. One very positive detail in lhe IBC
code is the specific $tatement lhat properly
dispersed accessitrle slorage space (by unit
size) can be located in a single building,
even if the facility has numerous buildings.
h is verl likely thar disabled access rvill
continue to be lhe area that creates the mosl
confusion and has the least uniformity due
to a wide range of conflicting federal and
state laws in effect from place to place.
Although the IBC has follorved the sen-
sible approach pioneered by the BOCA
code regarding disabled acce$s to a certain
percentage of overall spaces, local building
officials are often forced to adopt a more
stringent standard again due to often vague
slate laws. Relief for overzealous access
requirements has been particularly slow or
non-existent in California, ior example,
where some strict interpretations of the
state disabled access codes have required
accessibility to 100 percent of a project's
unirs, inside or outside. Cornpliance under
these circumstances leads to a muhitude of
difficult design challenges, including
sloped roll-up door thresholds, overly flat
sites that drain poorly, and expensive elabo-
rate pedestrian wheelchair rantps from pub-
lic sidewalks to the office thai are seldom. if
ever, used.
Viaw for lhe long Run
In conclusion, it can be said that the emer-
gence of the tBC is a positive development
for the self-storage development communi-
ty. Those who have worked closely with the
BOCA, SBCCI and ICBO codes in the past
will no doubt find areas where "their" codes
are better or worse than lhe IBC. Those rel-
atively minor discrepancies however, will
be minimized by the benefit of a nationally
accepted building code that rvill greatly
standardize the design and construction of
selfl-storage projects. While the future is
bright on a national level, challenges will
remain at the local level where we must all
continue to educate and enlighten our build-
ing officials and lawmakers.
The Self-Storage
Parking Debate
'Tihe parking issue has quickly become a
I real problem for the self-storage indus-
try, especiatly with so many developers
moving into commercial areas that have
zoning requirements in regards to parking.
The situation, however, can vary from
municipality to municipality, obsen'es Tim
Burnam, vice president of developnrent for
Columbia, Mo.based StorageMarl, whose
company is cunently developing new stores
in southeast Florida, Chicago and New
llork. While Bumam says that New York is
no problem, and Chicago is somewhat of a
problem, in southeast Florida the city offi-
cials are fanatical about the n**?A;;;u"r::Source: 2003 Self-Starage Almanac
oo
9.9
9.5
7.9
16.2
13.1
8.7
8.9
10,4
9.5
12.1
9.9
10.4
9.3
12.3
o.J
REGION
Division
Average
Number 0f
Parking
Spaces
NORTH CENTRAL
EastrNorth Central
WestNorth Central
10,8
10.6
1 1.3
NORTHEAST
Middle,Atlantic
Naw England
11.6
12.7
9.1
S()UTH:CENTRAI.
East South Cenlrai
West'South Central '
11.1
10.9
11.1
SOUTHEAST
South Atlantic
9.0
an
WEST
Mountain
Pacific
8.3
6.4
9.6
Number of $paces
1to99
100 to 299
300 to 499
500 to 999
ALt LtTrEs
1
Rentable Square
Lessthan 25,000
25,000 to 49;999
50,000 to 74;999
75,000'to 99;9gg
'Of
,MarketArea
Heavy'lndustrial
CommercialiRetail
Urban/Downtown
Residential
Rural
Populalion of
Su nou ndin g'[tl sfo Area
Less than Z5;000
25j000.1o,99;999
100;000 to 499;999
500;00010,999,999
1,000,000 and moro
TABLEl2 Parking spaces
r.com www.ministorqgemessenger.com Development Hondbook 2AA3 /27
SUCCESS STARTS HEREI
REGtoil
0iuision
Average Number
of Vehicles
Entering Ihe
Facility Daily
N{]RTI'ISENIMT
East North Central
West North Central
18.5
17.9
24.2
West Ssuth,Csntial
SOIIIH.CE!{TRAT
East Ssuth Centr'al
18.6
18.2
18.8
s0tJTltEA$f
SouSil Atlantie
22.7
22.7
:WEST
Msuntain
Pacifie
AlIFACILNilE 19.5
24.2
16,9
22.6
Numberof,Spaces
1to99
1001s 299
300 to.4$)9
600.ts 999
1,000 or rnore
6.6
16.2
25.8
J /.O
48.g
Renb ble.Squa re: Footage,
Less'lhan 26;000
25,000.1o 49;999
50,000 to 74,999
75,000 to,99,999
100,000'or rnsre
F,leavy,lndustrial
Commeroial/netail
Residential
Less than 25,000
25,000.1o 99;999
100;000 to 4t19,999
600,000 to 999,999
1,000;000,and'more
rABLEr3 Traffic Flow
17.-t
18.2
16.6
He explains that in Miami, city officials
want one parking space for every 1,000
square feet of storage. Hence, if you ffe
building an 80,000-square-foot facility,
theoretically it needs 80 parking spaces,
which is not even close to being reasonable.
The core of the problenr is that self-
slorage falls rvithin a commercial classifica-
tion and along with that classification is a
requirement for parking based on square
footage. Depending upon the jurisdiction,
cities or counties require so much parking
per square foot, such as four and a half or
six spaces per 1,000 square feet, especially
in retail areas.
Jim Howie, a broker with NAl/Brannen
Goddard in Atlanta, Ca., rvho often serves
as an expert witness for self-storage devel-
opers before zoning councils, says that
depending on location in retail areas, there
is a whole lot of parking required even
though self-storage needs very little parking
at its offices. The usual amounl of space
needed is a handicapped spot, four to eight
parking places, and spnce for a straight
truck such as a rental truck. Additionally,
there is really no tmffic at a selFstorage
facility since someone pulls up to the office,
rents a unit, and then goes to the unit or
leaves and there is little time spent parking
at the office.
Dealing With The lssue
It has been a process ol educating planning
department officials to under$tand lhat
self-storage does not need the parking that
other businesses that fall into this general
classification require. According to Scotl
Zucker, a partner with the law firm of
Weissmann & Zucker PC in Atla:rta, Cs.,
there are still areas that have not caught
up with the growth of self-storage-and
many zoning areas in the country still do
not have self-storage listed as a classifica-
tion in their zoning descriptions. He thinks
the situation is getting better but admits that
there are some inslances where the parking
issue can become a means to defeat a
proposed facility.
Almost every zoning 'board in the
Atlanta area has had to contend with self-
storage, so when there is a controversial
proposal they know how to wield power-
sometimes using the parking issue as a
means to keep self-storage development
out. The rnosl contentious situation Zucker
lras seen was in the metro-Atlanta area
where the motivation for the planning
department and zoning board was that they
really didn't want the self-storage facility
due to neighborhood opposition. The planning
deparlment refused to work with the devel-
opers and told them it would deny the vari-
ances and require the proposed facility to
have 100 parking spaces.
Anolher example is Randolph Self
Storage LLC, owned by the Nelson Brothers
of Minneapolis, a company that wanted to
buikl a self-storage warehouse in the city of
Randolph, Mass., but faced unexpected
intransigence over the parking issue. At the
end oflast year, it lost an appeals board vote
to allorv the facility to reduce parking from
620 to seven. The proposed facility was
designed for 800 self-storage units, and
lawyers for Randolph SelfStorage argued to
no avail that the required number of parking
spaces bore no resemblance to the needs of
the business where vehicle traffic was spo-
radic. Although no one would say on thc
record rvhy the zoning board would not
allow for a variance, there was serious oppo-
sition to the facility by the sunounding
neighborhood.
Jeffrey Creenberger, a partner with rhc
Cincinnati, Ohio law firm of Katz.
Greenberger & Norton LLP, says when he
represents self-storage operators in regards to
zoning, the issue that seems to scare neigh-
bors into opposition is not so nruch thc
amount of traffic, but what kind of rraffic. He
explains &at you have to show ilrem that l
self-storage facility doesn't anract a lot of
traflic, hence eight to 10 parking spaces is all
thal is needed. Additionally, you need to edu-
cale them so they understand that a facility is
not going to cause more rush hour traffic.
Cities use the parking gambit to keep out
self-storage for other reasons as well.
Howie says he worked with a developer in a
small Califomia city who wanted ro put
self-storage on one of the city's main
streets. The city wouldn't issue a variance
because it didn't want a business on that
particular site thal wasn't going to generrte
sales taxes. That site is now a drug store.
Voried tolu{ons
City planners and traffic engineers general-
ly don't understand the visitor pattems of
self-storage. For the most part, a customer
who is renting a self-storage unit will come
into a facility to lease his or her space, move
their goods into the unit, then may not
return for months. In some cases, self-
storage tenanls are known to store their
goods and not come back to rhe unit for
years. This is a concept that most city plan-
ners have difficulty comprehending. In their
mind set, if you have a business, it must
generate traffic. Therefore, once again, you
have to educate them.
If rh
vananct
tim€ to
comlnu
real esl
Centers
you hav
trying t
you wi
Additio
show tl
parking
explain
then ret
Gen'
difficult
erly pn
that he
wanted
order fc
support
other in
consult,
hearing
effort t
one-to-'
tem stu
become
Buman
based c
just ber
doesn't
comes I
and bui
er varil
make d
don't cl
Mos
be fle
Recentl
the p
Northb
ested il
the faci
issues,
sales tr
Norlhb
vehicle
pick-ug
ness), I
make n
self-stq
put in
boat$,
build a
cles, br
for thor
Ini
buildin,
council
facility
10.6
2A,4
30,3
41.0
50.0
22.2
24.7
2A.4
19,4
12.1
12,8
19.3
?6 1
25.8
24.9
Sou rce: 20A3 Self-Storage Almanac
28lDeveloprnent Hondbook 2003 wwwministorogemessenger.com www'tY