Comments on: More Proposed Plans for Downtown Wilmington http://www.finecoastalliving.com/blog/riverfront-gateway-plan/ Fine Coastal Living Wed, 04 May 2011 17:09:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1 By: Steve Millinor http://www.finecoastalliving.com/blog/riverfront-gateway-plan/#comment-475 Steve Millinor Mon, 24 Dec 2007 00:38:17 +0000 http://www.finecoastalliving.com/blog/riverfront-gateway-plan/#comment-475 Having reviewed the Gateway project description, admittedly cursory, I find myself wondering where the "greater good" will eventually exist. Being a lifelong resident of Wilmington, I have seen a great deal of changes, some good and some bad. Returning to the Wilmington Historic District about 10 years ago has reminded me that " downtown will never be like it was...." and that isn't necessarily bad. I remember Sears and Roebuck on Front street, Belk Berry ( and the great Christmas window) in what is now the public library, and yes, the Grandmas Mollasses Plant on Queen and Surry street. And I remember when Wilmington neigborhoods were a place where everyone knew each other. But alas, things change. I believe with proper oversight and guidance from the city and the state, this proposed development will be another step in the progress that WIlmington has in its future. I am sure there will be problems to be addressed but we have always been a progressive community, We should continue to look to that future. Thanks for allowing me a few moments of your time. Having reviewed the Gateway project description, admittedly cursory, I find myself wondering where the “greater good” will eventually exist. Being a lifelong resident of Wilmington, I have seen a great deal of changes, some good and some bad. Returning to the Wilmington Historic District about 10 years ago has reminded me that ” downtown will never be like it was….” and that isn’t necessarily bad. I remember Sears and Roebuck on Front street, Belk Berry ( and the great Christmas window) in what is now the public library, and yes, the Grandmas Mollasses Plant on Queen and Surry street. And I remember when Wilmington neigborhoods were a place where everyone knew each other. But alas, things change. I believe with proper oversight and guidance from the city and the state, this proposed development will be another step in the progress that WIlmington has in its future. I am sure there will be problems to be addressed but we have always been a progressive community, We should continue to look to that future. Thanks for allowing me a few moments of your time.

]]> By: neighborhood business owner http://www.finecoastalliving.com/blog/riverfront-gateway-plan/#comment-453 neighborhood business owner Sun, 16 Dec 2007 23:17:00 +0000 http://www.finecoastalliving.com/blog/riverfront-gateway-plan/#comment-453 This is yet another example of developers leading a "deer in the headlights" planning department down a dangerously wrong path. There is a good reason why this property is not zoned for residential or mixed use as it is adjacent to active and vital industrial properties (seriously conflicting uses). With it's unprecedented size, it gives no regard to the nearby SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL and existing small businesses either. Its mass and density dwarfs the already despised and over-sized (soon to be redeveloped) Solomon Towers project barely a block away. Responsible planners to not mix these uses so easily - it goes against the very nature of zoning itself. You cannot just disregard current uses or ignore building heights - zoning shouldn't work that way. Those rules are there to protect and insure existing property owners that they can operate their businesses without the worries that could come from inappropriate neighbors like the Gateway project. Anyone who lives near this site has to admit that this area to the south, although not picture perfect, works reasonably well for the residents AND existing businesses just like it is. Where are our paid city planners to speak up and say that these mega developments have no place on the Southern side of town? Is the goal of giving visitors something pretty to look at as they come over the bridge so much more important than so many taxpayers as residents and business owners that have existed in this neighborhood for so many years? Are promises of tax dollars blinding judgment of our city decision makers? I say that this vulgar monster will set a precedent of more multistory structures to follow. The Gateway property owner claims the surrounding roads can handle the new over burdening traffic with road improvements, and that most surely means reclaiming private property for widened roads and turn lanes not to mention adding stop lights, road signs, and surely parking meters in the end - more negative impact to the neighborhood. All to try and squeeze a square peg into a round hole. Collectively, as business and homeowners right here in this neighborhood (some for over 50 years) we have turned down past rezoning proposals of only three and four stories because of the added density that would have a negative impact on our residential neighbors and ourselves as well. Why, after those past discussions directly with city planners would a project like this even be considered much less approved? Is the new approach to try and sneak them in one parcel at a time? I thought that was spot zoning and considered illegal. It is time for the planning department to take the lead and approach the current surrounding property owners for some insight (again). They would find out (again) that aside from this one "developer" who doesn't even plan to build this project himself, but sell it to the highest bidder and run with the money; we like our current zoning and low density just like it is and hope to keep it that way. I can only hope for our city council to succeed where the planning commission failed and send this circus packing and then maybe look at sensible and appropriate options for a more realistic low density development that suits and serves not only visitors and the tax base, but also the neighbors and tax payers who have occupied and invested this area even before the days when it became desirable. This is yet another example of developers leading a “deer in the headlights” planning department down a dangerously wrong path. There is a good reason why this property is not zoned for residential or mixed use as it is adjacent to active and vital industrial properties (seriously conflicting uses). With it’s unprecedented size, it gives no regard to the nearby SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL and existing small businesses either. Its mass and density dwarfs the already despised and over-sized (soon to be redeveloped) Solomon Towers project barely a block away. Responsible planners to not mix these uses so easily – it goes against the very nature of zoning itself. You cannot just disregard current uses or ignore building heights – zoning shouldn’t work that way. Those rules are there to protect and insure existing property owners that they can operate their businesses without the worries that could come from inappropriate neighbors like the Gateway project. Anyone who lives near this site has to admit that this area to the south, although not picture perfect, works reasonably well for the residents AND existing businesses just like it is.

Where are our paid city planners to speak up and say that these mega developments have no place on the Southern side of town? Is the goal of giving visitors something pretty to look at as they come over the bridge so much more important than so many taxpayers as residents and business owners that have existed in this neighborhood for so many years? Are promises of tax dollars blinding judgment of our city decision makers?

I say that this vulgar monster will set a precedent of more multistory structures to follow. The Gateway property owner claims the surrounding roads can handle the new over burdening traffic with road improvements, and that most surely means reclaiming private property for widened roads and turn lanes not to mention adding stop lights, road signs, and surely parking meters in the end – more negative impact to the neighborhood. All to try and squeeze a square peg into a round hole.

Collectively, as business and homeowners right here in this neighborhood (some for over 50 years) we have turned down past rezoning proposals of only three and four stories because of the added density that would have a negative impact on our residential neighbors and ourselves as well. Why, after those past discussions directly with city planners would a project like this even be considered much less approved? Is the new approach to try and sneak them in one parcel at a time? I thought that was spot zoning and considered illegal.

It is time for the planning department to take the lead and approach the current surrounding property owners for some insight (again). They would find out (again) that aside from this one “developer” who doesn’t even plan to build this project himself, but sell it to the highest bidder and run with the money; we like our current zoning and low density just like it is and hope to keep it that way.

I can only hope for our city council to succeed where the planning commission failed and send this circus packing and then maybe look at sensible and appropriate options for a more realistic low density development that suits and serves not only visitors and the tax base, but also the neighbors and tax payers who have occupied and invested this area even before the days when it became desirable.

]]> By: Young Local http://www.finecoastalliving.com/blog/riverfront-gateway-plan/#comment-377 Young Local Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:06:15 +0000 http://www.finecoastalliving.com/blog/riverfront-gateway-plan/#comment-377 Sounds like a worthy project to me. That area needs attention. What would the developers do about the nasty oil plant just south of there? Sounds like a worthy project to me. That area needs attention. What would the developers do about the nasty oil plant just south of there?

]]>