According to the City, the bridge towers are 185 ft. high.  This picture is taken from 650 feet, the same distance from the Riverwalk to the buildable land on the west bank.  A building allowable in proposed new zoning could go higher and could stretch an entire city block (directly across between Dock and Orange).

RFMU = Riverfront Mixed-Use Rezoning

Here are some "talking points" you can use for emails to City Council and the County Planning Board.

ROW Board's Position (& response to a question about the RFMU as currently proposed)

November 30, 2006 - written by Kevin O'Grady

We propose that the RFMU be modified as described below. The position expressed in this e-mail has been adopted by the Board of The Residents of Old Wilmington.  ROW’s members recently unanimously voted to oppose high rise development across from the historic core of Wilmington.

In this area, the “carrot” you refer to of RFMU zoning can contribute to the benefit of New Hanover County.  A developer would likely value mixed use (residential and commercial) development over industrial.  The mixed use is likely more profitable. The availability of RFMU zoning in the I-1 and I-2 areas could lead to high rise mixed use development that would improve the use of this land.

There is little detriment to allowing high rise development in these (I-1 and I-2) areas.  The only consideration is how high?  The current RFMU is unlimited in height.  It would permit buildings of 20 to 25 floors including parking.  This could be 200 to 250 feet in height.  These heights dwarf the current and proposed building in the City.  The County should, therefore, consider a maximum height, regardless of floors, of no more then 150 feet.  This should be ample height to work as a “carrot” for mixed use development without overwhelming the neighboring City developments.

This land is historically part of the Wilmington seaport.  Maps and photography show historically that the far shore from downtown Wilmington has always been a subservient adjunct to the City’s industry.  Contrary to the contentions of the staff who characterize the County shore as having no historical context relative to height, history shows its buildings have always been low lying;  no structure dominated the heavily developed City river front.  High rise development on this opposing shore would be a detriment to the historic district.  It would reverse the historic dominance of the downtown at the river front.  It would render historic Wilmington to a quaint appendage to the then dominant western shore.

The County shoreline across from the historic Wilmington today serves as the Riverwalk’s backdrop.  The low lying green shoreline is as much a part of the historic feel of the downtown experience as the buildings on Water Street.  When you walk the Riverwalk, you feel you are walking through history; seeing the River as it was and still is today.  It is the historical feel of downtown that is the prime draw for tourists.  For example, this November four cruise ships visited Wilmington on historic tours of the east coast.  These cruise ships did not visit Wilmington to tour its mixed use developments or its glass curtain walled high rises.  They came to experience the look and feel of the historic City.  The County’s shoreline is an integral part of that feel.  Furthermore, the County shoreline is the backdrop for the Riverwalk’s fabulous sunsets.  Sunsets that rival Key West.  Sunsets that will attract tourists over and over again.  Sunsets that will be lost if high rise development comes to the County’s west shoreline.

Topographically, the RFMU would be applicable to only two parcels on the County shore.  Most of this B-2 zoned area is wetlands.  The only buildable area is within the parcels immediately opposite the historic downtown.  This is the only area where RFMU would have any practical effect.

The effect would be devastating.  This land is not served by water or sewer.  The cost of installation would be such that it guarantees that any developer would build to the maximum height allowable.  Furthermore, because most of the parcels are comprised of wetlands, the developer could declare all the wetlands to be “public spaces.”   The wetlands far exceed the 10% required under section (d)(4)(a), thereby entitling the developer to “bonus” height.  The RFMU would not act as a “carrot” in the seaport.   The RFMU as proposed would result in inevitable build out to the limit regardless of the negative effect on the historic district.  Once the right to height is created by RFMU, the Planning Board and County Commission will be powerless to stop the inevitable demand for approval of the maximum possible height. The proposed RFMU would damage the river front rather then save it. 

Our alternative is a “carrot” that does not destroy the Riverwalk’s ambiance.  The current zoning allows only 40 feet (the buildable land does not border collector or arterial roadways).  There is little likelihood anything will be built on this land with its current zoning.  This is not a bad outcome.  Hopefully, with time, either the County will acquire the land and make this area a park or a conservation group will acquire it.   However, we have proposed amending the RFMU allowing up to 50 feet at a maximum (the same height as the Federal Courthouse, the highest building on the river front), with no additions, as a “carrot” to encourage low rise mixed use development that will not destroy the historic and neighborhood context.

Conclusion

“One size fits all” is wrong when applied to the river front.  Although the industrial areas to the north of the City can bear higher development, the historic seaport would suffer.  Accordingly, the RFMU should be passed with amendments limiting height in the historic seaport to an absolute maximum of 50 feet and to 150 feet in the northern industrial areas, provided all other requirements of the RFMU are met.

We look forward to your support on these amendments when the matter comes before the County Planning Board.  Don’t ruin the Riverwalk!