Urban Waterfront Redevelopment Study-1982

m
J w
z
c
0
CP
c
E
0
V
q
01%
Y

URBAN WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT STUDY
City of Wilmington, North Carolina
April, 1982
The preparation of this report was financed
in part through a grant provided by the
North Carolina Coastal Management Program,
through funds provided by the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972, as amended, which
is administered by the Office of Coastal
Zone Management, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
PROJECT DIRECTOR: Justin Little
PROJECT TEAM: Arcelia Wicker, Sr.
Charles Lilley
Hugh Caldwell
John Bauer

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Subject Page
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
Boundary Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Zoning............................. 3
Coastal Area Management Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Flood Plain Ordinance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
General Topography & Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Taxes, Utilities & Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Existing Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Inventory of Existing Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
WORK PREPARED UNDER CONTRACT WITH PRIVATE FIRMS
Soil & Groundwater Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
SummaryAppraisal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
Analysis by City Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Options. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
APPENDIX
Evaluation of Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

INTRODUCTION
The City of.Wilmington owns a 44± acre tract along the Cape Fear River at
the western end of Greenfield Street and west of Surry Street. Commonly known
as the Old Liberty Shipyard Tract, the site is presently leased to Southern
Wood Piedmont Company, a wood preservative firm. The lease expired on
December 31, 1981, and negotiations between the City and the company are cur-
rently underway.
Regardless of whether or not the lease would be renewed, it was evident
that the development potential of this valuable City property needed to be
analyzed in order to provide the City with information on its highest and best
use. This study provides summaries of an appraisal report, a soil and ground-
water analysis, and a topographic and drainage analysis. In addition, an
analysis of existing conditions, an evaluation of land uses, and redevelopment
alternatives are provided.
This report was prepared and financed in part by a Coastal Area Management
Act Grant of $10,000. All work was undertaken pursuant to the approved grant
contract.
-1-

LOCATION MAP
E N °
CITY OF WILMINGTON
•
O °
r
?l .O N
g •
�00�6 � � �
• � .em w.o,ma w. �
�J-1MFXiSYlfll WLR
14GwrSYI� fG1CN _
• -
•
f • .r,.n
q.sff � _
• : U �.
WLR
{ V Mr.wW
M
1.. emN
s ..m
N�a... w,d ••rs
� ,•wwLr4�Y_
i .,
-r NEW HANOVER COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS
Q• A CO,.r• p.• Mwrff6
STATE-WIDE HIGHWAY PLANNING SURVEY
- MRpw.fO.•C M.e, S.OMR.W ,plop Oaf
- n,wrt.•p wYgb Wrt.M NTafgiy
QRar! frrOn.. tl b
' IrrOru. •fb 1Nl r rNr -
SKOOYr q.• N..fm 1.®Y O Yw. 1. rN1 - ' !
frlr r b
—2-

EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
Boundary Description:
The Old Liberty Shipyard Tract is located at the west end of Greenfield
Street, bounded on the north by property owned by Hess Oil and Chemical
Company, on the south by the property owned by the N. C. State Ports Authority,
on the east by the Surry Street right-of-way, and on the west by the Cape Fear
River. A location map is contained on page 2, showing the general vicinity of
the site.
The approximate measurements of the site are:
1. Northern boundary-- 1,600 feet
2. Southern boundary-- 1,800 feet
3. Eastern boundary--- 1,400 feet
4. Western boundary--- 900 feet
A survey of the site was conducted by the City's-Engineering Division of
the Public Works Department; a copy of the survey is on file in the Division.
A sketch of the site is contained on page 10.
Zoning:
The City's Zoning Ordinance is currently being revised. The site's existing
designation of M-2 is proposed to be changed to HM-- Heavy Manufacturing. It
does not appear that any land use which would find the site attractive would be
excluded by zoning regulations. In fact, not all of the permitted uses would
necessarily find the site suitable for their activities.
In the M-2 district, any building or land may be used for any purpose not
in conflict with any ordinance within the City except that no building or occu-
pancy permit shall be issued for any of the following uses until or unless the
location of such use shall have been approved by the Board of Adjustment: acid
manufacture; cement, lime, gypsum, or plaster of paris manufacture; distillation
of bones; explosives (manufacture or storage);'fat rendering; garbage, offal or
dead animal reduction or dumping; gas manufacture;. animals; tannery; storage or
bailing of rags, paper, iron or junk; used car junk areas; and pulp and paper
manufacture. It is noted here that none of the above uses were recommended as
optimal uses by either the appraiser or the City's project team conducting this
study.
A zoning classification map of the site and adjacent tracts is provided on
page 4 . As indicated by the map, this property is surrounded by properties
classified M-2, i.e., heavy manufacturing.
-3-

4-
ri
TV.
L 1
1 2
wo;
D
-cs-c-L,
M-2
M-1., R-1
cc
R-2
R-2
M-2
All
co
7'
R-1A
GREENFIELD
LAkE`
01
M-2 Co
R�.IA
ZONING CLASSIFICATION'
-CITY OF WILMINGTON
1-2
+
-4-

Coastal Area Management Act:
This site would be subject to this act; a major permit is required for any
land disturbing activity on a tract greater than one acre which abuts water
affected by tidal flow. Under the 1981 CAMA Land Use Plan Update, the property
has been classified as Developed, recognizing the current wood preservative
operation on the site.
The Coastal Area Management Act required preparation of land use plans,
designated areas of environmental concern, and designed a permit system. The
N. C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development has review
powers required under this act. Areas of control include: land use; sanitary
waste treatment; ground and water quality; erosion and sediment control; air
and industrial pollution; wetland area development; dredge and fill permits;
utilities; and building code.
Flood Plain Ordinance:
The property is located in Zones A and V -of this ordinance and falls within
the 100-year flood plain. New constructions, improvements, reconstructions, or
land alterations must satisfy the ordinance's provisions. An architect or
registered engineer must certify that the ordinance's requirements are met.
-5-

A
Q
II X5.0
Q
U
N X4 5
�LF'ie.
X5 0
X30
30
TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP
CITY OF WILMINGTON
X173 20
X7.3 , 1
DAW
-
'
i x72 Tank Form
-16-
158x 25.0x —R 26.9
26;
x54 x 24.2 -
195R29.9 x 1
x r 2341
x 30 ^ '
`t 4.% 2. 64x 90x -l4 I Tank Form
� -
22.7
X6 4
19.
x 5 %41 Xz It= 32—0__
- —_ _�.__``
_ Tank - Form
x 6 6 -. -7x
X47
0 Tank Form •14.4
10.7 1 x,-
% 4.7
4% _—
:�. _;o _; lam' — y
p; 70X
[ll�
_ _ —-•�-_—�� _'-: - 35 -
�� x
56
Z x 3.0
�J
r,
k 3.5
_
�..�
;3g � 28
2
'I,., .I
x2.5
II
a
!4 I U3.0
�' 11
it\ � X2.5
I ,�
IIn, 11.cp /
Dense Folioge
X 3.5
I� X3.3
--_2b "--
f

General Topography and Drainage:
This 44± acre site contains 35± acres of land area and 9± acres of water
area, based on a high water elevation of 3.2' MSL.
A low lying tract, the land elevation of the site ranges from 1.5' MSL
to 5.5' MSL, with the majority of the site at approximately 3.5' MSL. The
site is generally flat except for a slight rise near the river. River high
water elevations taken on December 2, 3, 4, and 9, 1981 ranged from 2.07' MSL
to 3.6' MSL; see topographical map on page 6 .
Approximately five acres of the site are subject to occasional tidal
flooding due to the periodic malfunction of the flap -gate on a culvert through
the berm along the southern edge of the property. Back-up flood protection is
provided by the Greenfield Creek floodgates; however, it should be noted that
flood protection devices of this type are vulnerable to clogging by floating
debris which renders them ineffective. Access on this site and the N. C. State
Ports Authority property must be continued by easement in order to continue to
maintain the floodgates.
The existing drainage system consists of two ditches. The southern ditch
runs along the south side of Greenfield Street extension, then turns south
across the site to the berm culvert described above and continues on to Greenfield
Creek. The northern ditch runs along the north property line and connects to
the Cape Fear River. Both ditches have randomly sized culverts at various lo-
cations. Neither ditch is uniformly graded or regularly maintained. Overland
drainage flow to the ditches is inhibited by the numerous railroad tracks on the
property. There is a sump and pump system owned by the Amerada Hess Corporation
located in the northern ditch. According to the Hess' manager, this pump is
connected to a separator on _their property which removes petroleum products from
the ditch water.
The solution to the drainage problems associated with this site will depend
greatly on the intended use. The existing creosoting operation does not appear
to be substantially hampered by the inferior drainage characteristics; however,
most other land uses will require a better drained site.
-7-

DATE: April 15, 1982
SITE NAME: LOCATION:
North of State Ports Authority
property and west of Front Street
OLD LIBERTY SHIPYARD SITE
SITE DATA
FIRE
TOTALACREAGE: 44
MUNICIPAL: X
CLEARED ACREAGE: 44
VOLUNTEER:
ACREAGE SUITABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION: 35
RATING: 2
OWNERSHIP (NO.& ENTITY): One -City of Wilmington
REAL ESTATE TAX RATE
AVERAGE ELEVATION OF USABLE AREA:
CITY:_
COUNTY:
19 81 TAXES PAID : None
UTILITIES SUPPLIER
SIZE OF UNE/NEARESTTO SITE
COMMUNICATIONS: Southern Bell
Normal service available.
ELECTRIC POWER:. Carolina Power & Light Co.
Normal service available.
NATURALGAS: N. C. Natural Gas Corp.
4" - On Site
WATER
MUNICIPAL- City of Wilmington
16" - adjacent
GROUND: New Hanover County Health Dept
-
Domestic Supply
N.C. Dept. of Natural Resourc
s
& Community Development
Non -Domestic
SEWERAGE:
MUNICIPAL: City of Wilmington
18" - adjacent
SEPTIC TANK:
-
-
TRANSPORTATION
RAILROAD: Seaboard Coast Line RR Co.
On Site
HIGHWAYS: U.S. 421
4
AIRPORT: New Hanover County _
6 miles north
DEEP WATER PORT: Wilmington State Port
Adjacent
OTHER WATERWAYS: Intracoastal Waterway
10 miles
MOTOR FREIGHT: 40 carriers, most with local terminals
COMMENTS
Property is exempt from real estate taxes as long as
it remains within.
public ownership.
LOCAL CONTACT
Ralph Godwin [phone]
Robert G. Cobb [phone]
Wilmington Industrial Development, Inc. OR
City Manager
P. 0. Box 1698 =
P. 0. Box 1810
Wilmington, North Carolina 284.02
Wilmington, North Carolina
28402

Taxes, Utilities, & Transportation:
The table on page 8 provides basic data concerning the tract. The property
holds an exempt tax status since it is owned by the City of Wilmington; no real
estate taxes are paid on the property.
All utilities are available to the site. Southern Bell Telephone Company
and Carolina Power and Light Company supply telephone and electric services,
respectively, to the current tenant (Southern Wood Piedmont Company). A
four (4) inch gas line is located on the site, provided by the N. C. Natural Gas
Corporation._ Service expansions are available upon request.
Municipal water and sewer services are also available. Sewerage discharged
by Southern Wood Piedmont Company has, from time to time, demanded extensive
treatment at the City's Southside Plant.
Transportation facilities surround the site. Rail spurs traverse the
tract and rail service is provided by the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company.
The New Hanover County Airport is six miles to the north.
The site is less than one mile from U. S. 421; there are approximately
forty (40) carriers (most with local terminals) in the Wilmington area. The
deep water port of the N. C. Ports Authority is adjacent to the tract and the
Intracoastal Waterway is ten miles from the site.
Mel

I )
C L
C L 1 Y U
V �
h
cr
o
B-3 B-2 D
Slip e m
Cooker
Pressure Buildin;
Vat
O D
a
Storage 1
Tanks D-1��
51 1 O 150 3 o SOIL d MATERIAL ENGINEERS.INC.
RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA
oem".sr. cHrco.nr
Boring location Plan PI
Southern Wood PiedmontS JOB H0.6 OAT[
City of Wilmington Pronerty RS-1759 12-4-81'
Wilmington, N. C. icy,
franhic •HUT 1 Of 2

Existing Land Use:
For approximately forty (40) years, a wood preservative operation has been
located on the site. The site is currently occupied by the Southern Wood
Piedmont Company; a wood preservative/treating operation is conducted by this
firm. Raw and dressed lumber is delivered; the raw lumber is debarked and
kiln dried in on -site facilities. The lumber is treated on site, and creosote,
pentachlorophenol, and chrome -cooper -arsenic are used as wood preservatives.
Chemicals are stored adjacent to the respective treating facility. Additional
tanks for creosote storage are located in the -southwest property corner.
Southern Wood Piedmont Company makes minimal use of the existing dilapi-
dated wooden pier. Products are, for the most part, transported to and from
the site by truck. Numerous rail lines for operating the company's cranes and
railroad cars traverse the area. These rails, as well as trucks, provide the
means for handling wood products on -site.
The discharge of industrial wastes by Southern Wood Piedmont Company into
the City's sanitary sewer has caused the City treatment problems from time to
time. The firm is one of several industries being evaluated by the City under
pretreatment program development and sewer use ordinance enforcement.
The N. C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development has
requested the firm to clean-up wastes which have been dumped/stored on -site.
Such wastes may have contaminated the ground water.
The lease between the City and Southern Wood Piedmont ended on December 31,
1981. The most recent annual rental was $15,000. At this writing, negotiations
between both parties to the lease are continuing.
-11-

O
GREE-NFIELD ST
3 '% D
O°
0
° °O
EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS
1. WOODEN PIER
2. BARGE SLIPS _
3. DIRT ROAD
4. RAILSPURS C of W/Old Liberty Shipyard Site f1
5.ASFHALT ROAD �1
6. DRAINAGE DITCH '
(buildinas excepted) 100 0 200

Inventory of Existing Improvements:
Existing improvements are shown on the map on page 12. The site has barge
slips and a wooden pier. However, the barge slips are silted in beyond useful-
ness and the pier needs to be replaced before significant water transport
activity can take place. There are several alternatives:
(1) Existing barge slips could be removed and replaced with suitable
slips; the barge area could be dredged. However, the water depth
of the existing slips is approximately 18 inches at high water;
therefore a significant amount of dredging would need to be under-
taken to correct the problem.
(2) Existing barge slips could be removed and filled in to add land
area. However, it would be difficult for the City or any firm to
secure the required N. C. State or Army Corps of Engineers permits
for such work.
(3) Existing pier could be removed and replaced with a T-head pier;
dredging to a depth of 34 feet (current depth 20 feet) at its
head would also be necessary. This alternative would be adequate
to serve most ships and barges. Obtaining the required permits
would still be difficult, but less so than in alternatives #1 and #2..
The alternative selected will again depend upon the particular land use.
The existing wood preservative operation is not dependent on water transporta-
tion. However, uses which depend on barge transport will need the existing
slips removed and replaced, and extensive dredging undertaken. Land uses which
depend on ship transport will need a T-head pier constructed.
As noted in the appraisal report, other improvements located on the site
are: a one-story frame employee building, a one-story frame office building,
a one-story masonry building "kiln", a one-story masonry building "laboratory
and eating area", the Creosote Plant, several one-story metal sheds, many metal
storage tanks, two (2) diesel fuel pumps and several underground tanks. The
improvements, upon termination of the lease, would become the property of the
lessor (City). However, since the majority of the improvements are of a special
purpose nature (the wood preservative operation) and since the improvements are
more than 30 years old and observed in a poor to fair condition, it -appears such
improvements add no value to the property.
-13-

sir
0
Q
O � p
op 00
o POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS Goo.
O
1. NEW T—HEAD PIER A
2. REMOVE SLIPS and FILL / REMOVE SLIPS and c�
DREDGE and REPLACE WITH NEW SLIPS.
3. PAVE OR RELOCATE ROAD
4. REMOVE SEVERAL SPURS C of W/Old Liberty Shipyard Site
5. REPAIR ROAD
6. FILL DITCH and REDESIGN DRAINAGE or
• CLEAN THE DITCH.
(buildings excepted) 1 100 6 200
r.
GREENFIELD ST
7;,l
cn
f I �
f
fl
01
.I
i1
f /
f 1
1 �
f�
:i
i!

WORK PREPARED UNDER CONTRACT BY PRIVATE FIRMS
Soil and Groundwater Analysis:
Soil and Material Engineers, Inc. of Raleigh, N. C. was contracted to
perform tests and evaluations of the site's soil'and groundwater conditions,
and preliminary recommendations for possible foundation construction(s).
The full report is on file in the City Manager's Office.
Several key findings are:
(1) "Fill overlying compressible organic deposits will require foundation
systems and site preparation procedures that will either: 1) limit
foundation loadings; 2) require improvement of surface soils; or
3) transmit foundation loads to deeper more competent strata."
(2) "For construction purposes, this site is typical of other sites
located along the riverfront."
(3) "Very light loads with some settlement tolerance such as those
associated with warehouses and steel frame buildings, can probably
be supported on shallow footings with minimum site preparation and
grading. Light to moderately heavy structures, particularly struc-
tures sensitive to differential settlement, cannot be supported on
shallow footings without special site preparation such as extensive
preloading. Moderately heavy to heavy structures, such as large
storage tanks and production plants, must be supported on deep founda-
tions bearing below the organic zone."
(4) "Suitable deep foundations could range from relatively low capacity
timber piles (allowable loads of 15 to 25 tons) to moderately loaded
precast concrete piles (allowable loads of 40 to 50 tons) to heavily
loaded cast -in -place concrete pipe piles or H-piles (allowable loads
of 40 to 60 tons)." .
(5) . . the groundwater beneath the site is contaminated, and some
contaminant concentrations are above maximum concentrations recommend-
ed for chlorinated drinking water."
(6) "The contaminants anthracene, chromium, flourene and pentachlorophenol
most probably originated from Southern Wood Piedmont Company's wood
treating processes."
Fine widely spaced borings were drilled across the site to a maximum depth
of 50 feet below the ground surface, corresponding with the upper elevation of
the Castle Hayne formation at this site. By mutual agreement between City,
Southern. Wood Piedmont Company, and Soil and Material Engineers, Inc. represen-
tatives, specific boring locations were established in the field. The borings
were made in order to secure soil samples; wells adjacent to the borings were
installed in order -to secure groundwater samples. Standard engineering and EPA
test procedures were used to classify soils and analyze the groundwater.
-15-

Soil and Material Engineers, Inc. recommended further tests be undertaken
to monitor contaminants and to verify contamination sources. Also, the engi-
neering firm recommended additional detailed subsurface investigations be
conducted as specific development plans are formulated, since the subsurface
conditi-ons across the site do wary.
Swmdrj gpprais l:
Joseph M. Robb, M.A.I., performed an appraisal of the subject property; a
copy of the appraisal is on file in the City Manager's Office. The property
was inspected during March 6, May 25, and June 25 of 1981. The land value was
estimated by the land value by comparison technique; the estimate of market
rental was determined by an analysis of rents of comparable facilities and a
fair rental return on the.estimated market value. His key findings were:
(1) Potential physical uses for which the site could be adapted, in the
event of cessation -of the present use, are, in order of priority:
petro-chemical; grain and related products; wood chips; coal; and
bulk goods handling.facilities.
(2) The estimated value of the land is $740,000.
(3) With an interest (risk) rate of eighteen (18) percent, the annual
initial market rental of the property is estimated as:
$740,000 X .18 = $133,000.
It is noted that the appraiser did not believe the current tenant (wood
preservative operation) was the most appropriate occupant for the site. His
opinion was based, in large part, on the fact that Southern Wood Piedmont
Company does not use the river for transportation to a great extent. Thus,
Southern Wood Piedmont or any other similar activity does not need a riverfront
site to carry on its activities.
Conversely, the land uses which Mr. Robb ascertained as optimal would find
the prospects of river and rail transport both advantageous and necessary.
Water transport or water dependency was also viewed as a key factor in the pro-
ject team's evaluation of land uses.
It is also noted that the land (market) value and the interest (risk) rate
are estimates of what the City could secure. Such estimates provide the City
with strong negotiating points with which to discuss lease terms with Southern
Wood Piedmont Company or other potential tenants.
-16-

DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
Analysis by City Staff:
Since the site is publicly owned, the evaluation of uses was somewhat
broader than a standard feasibility study. Land uses which received high
rankings had the following general characteristics:
(1) They were environmentally "clean", i.e., they would not generate
hazardous or toxic wastes, nor create a health hazard.
(2) They would benefit from the site's water access and find the site
more suitable and preferable for their operations than a "land-
locked" site.
(3) They would make minimal use of rail transport. Although rail spurs
are on'the site, heavy rail use would create traffic problems
throughout the City, particularly in residential areas.
(4) They would be able to pay either a fair market rental or purchase
price for the tract to the City.
(5) They could legally locate on.the site.
(6) They would find development of the site as economically attractive
and feasible.
(7) They could physically adapt the site to their own use.
The methodology which was used to evaluate optimal land uses for the site
is contained in the appendix, beginning on page 27. Highly ranked uses, in
order, were:
(1) Water Transportation
(2) Warehouse-- General
(3) Petroleum Refining (Tank Farms)
_ (4) Saw and Planing Mills
(5) Lumber and Wood, except Furniture
(6) Wholesale Trade-- Durable Goods
In addition to the above uses, a seventh was added-- Marine Construction/
Marine Repair. If off -shore oil drilling takes place or demand for ship repairing
increases, then this land use would be appropriate. The construction of facilities
which could be transported from this tract to off -shore sites would be another
optimal use of the property.
-17-

GREENFIELD S'
100 200

It should be recognized that the "benefits vs. costs" of vari)us alterna-
tives were viewed broadly as "strengths vs. weaknesses". It was not feasible
to develop detailed costs and benefits, given the scope of the project.
The strengths and weaknesses of the highly -ranked uses are listed below.
Similar uses had similar strengths and weaknesses and were analyzed in combina-
tion (e.g., "Warehouse-- General" and "Wholesale Trade-- Durable Goods").
Sketches which contain alternative development schemes are contained on page 18
and page 20.
Water Transportation (including tugboat, towing, and barge operations)
Strengths Weaknesses
1. Would be a clean use 1. Would compete with existing water
2. May be able to use site in
conjunction with another use
which is not water dependent
3. Would mesh well with port
activities
4. Obvious benefit from water access;
water dependent land use
5. Would make minimal use of rail
transport
6. After minimal cleanup, site could
be adapted for this use
transport activities in area
2. Would create few jobs
3. May have difficulty in paying fair
market rental or purchase price
4. Would require improvements to pier
and/or barge slips
5. May not need entire site for its
operation
Warehouse- General and Wholesale Trade- Durable Goods
Strengths
1. Potentially clean use
2. Would mesh well with port
activities
3. Free Trade Zone designation
would enhance this use
Weaknesses
1. Improvements to drainage and streets
would be necessary
2. May generate either heavy truck or
rail traffic
3. May require improvements to pier
if ship transport is heavy
4. Site could be adapted for this use
-19-

W
J
O
m
2
J
Q
POSSIBLE USE
TANK' FARM
(PETROLEUM STORAGE)
C of W/Old Liberty 'Shipyard Site
10
bO b
' 200 ,
I�
H
cn
r
D
a:
GREENFIELD ST.

Tank Farms (Petroleum Refining)
Strengths
1. Adjacent land use - tank farm;
would mesh nicely with this use
2. Personal property tax basewould
increase substantially
3. Potentially clean use if preven-
tive measures are enforced
4. Site could be adapted for this use
5. Would probably have minimal use
of rail transport
1�
1. Improvements to drainage and streets
and pier would be necessary
2. World-wide oil surplus may limit
need to expand storage facilities
at this time
3. Major site preparation would be
necessary
Lumber and Wood, Except Furniture and Saw and Planning Mills
Strengths
1. Relatively clean industry
2. May create high number of jobs
3. After clean-up, site could be
physically adapted to site for
this use
Marine Construction/Marine Repair
Strengths
1. Clean industry
2. Would maximize use of river access
3. Would allow for expansion of other
water -oriented industries, e.g.,
off -shore oil drilling
4. Would make minimal use of rail
transport
-21-
Weaknesses
1. Would generate heavy rail or truck
traffic
2. May find other sites, without
water access, more economically
feasible
3. May need extensive site preparation
Weaknesses
1. Weak market
2. Dependent on success/failure of
other industries
3. Chicken and egg phenomenon --
problem of timing in connection
with other uses
4. May need extensive site preparation

Options
Several development options were considered by the project team, based on
the collected data and evaluation of land uses. These options are summarized
below. The project team's recommendations concerning the near and long-term
use of the property immediately follow.
Lease vs. Sell: Staff considered whether the City should continue to
lease the site or whether the tract should be sold. If the property were sold
to a private firm for $750,000, then the annual taxes returned to the City
would be $7,125. If the proceeds from the sale were invested at a fifteen (15)
percent rate of return, then the annual sum which would accrue would be
$119,625.
If the City continued to lease the property and secured a lease payment
which approximated Treasury Bill rates, the only loss to the City (in revenues)
would be taxes ($7,000 to $8,000 per year). However, the City would still be
able to realize appreciation on the property;.have lessor control over improve-
ments to the site; and retain ownership in any capital improvements to the tract
by lessees.
Subdivision: With the exception of Water Transportation, each optimal
use would need the entire tract to carry on its operation. Subdividing the
property does not appear to be a viable alternative if an industrial use is
considered as the optimum for the site.
Open Space Development: Aside from the loss of revenue, the site has
limitations as a park area. Grading and fill construction, removal of the
existing barge slips, as well as rail spurs, would all need to be undertaken
prior to landscaping and park construction. Financing a new park would be, in
a word, problematical.
-23-

Recommendations:
The recommendations of the Project Team are as follows:
(1) If the present occupant and the City cannot conclude a mutually
satisfactory lease contract, or if the present occupant at some
point in time finds the site undesirable, then the property
should be marketed toward securing one or a combination of the
following uses: water transportation; warehouse- general;
petroleum refining; saw and plan.ing mills; lumber and wood
except furniture; wholesale trade- durable goods; and marine
construction and repair.
(2) The annual rental of the property should be increased from $15,000
to an annual sum in the range of $74,000 to $133,000. This range
is based on rates of return of 10 to 18 percent respectively, on
the property's estimated value ($740,000).
(3) Southern Wood Piedmont Company should clean-up any water contami-
nation which has resulted from its operations.
(4) Capital improvements, such as dredge and fill, construction of a
pier and barge slips, and site preparation, should be undertaken
as necessary by the existing or future lessees to the property.
(5) Some form of riverfront access or waterfront leasehold easement
should be included in future lease contracts with Southern Wood
Piedmont if this firm continues as the City's tenant. In this way,
a water transport user (e.g., tugs) could use the river and co-
exist with the wood treating firm.
(6) In recognition that the potential market for the site is a multi-
state region, appropriate marketing methods would include the
following:
1) This study and other sources should be gathered into an
attractive concise property information package.
2) Use should be made of both the Committee of 100, the local
industrial recruitment organization, the North Carolina
Department of Commerce and perhaps the North Carolina State
Ports Authority. Each of these organizations has extensive
useful contacts.
3) Consideration should be given to obtaining the services of
a major 'regional industrial and commercial broker such as
Binswanger or Coldwell Banker.
4) Finally, advertisements in selected trade publications and
general business publications (such as the regional edition
of the Wall Street Journal) should be considered.
-24-

EVALUATION OF LAND USES
Analysis Methods:
The Project Team used three steps in evaluating the optimum land use(s)
for the site:
(1) A general analysis;
(2) An analysis of possible uses; and
(3) An analysis of possible and desirable uses.
Step One: General Analysis:
Staff weighed and discussed all possible land uses and made the
following general conclusions:
1. Residential development would be highly improbable given the
incompatible surrounding land uses of bulk (petroleum) storage
and N. C. State Ports Authority activities.
2. Commercial, service business, and office development would be
unlikely because of the limited access and visibility of the
site.
3. The site is appropriate for use by City operations. However,
based on available information, no particular need for its
use was identified for public works or public safety purposes.
A readily identifiable public use would be open space or recre-
ation development. The City's major recreation facility,
Greenfield Park, is located near the site; refer to map on
page 2 . The site could serve as a connection between the lake and
the Cape Fear River, as well as provide a boat launch facility
on the Cape Fear within the City limits.
4. Industr.ial or warehousing development was determined to be most
appropriate, given the surrounding land uses and the site's rail
and river access.
Step Two: Analysis of Possible Uses:
The list of fifty-two (52) land uses which were analyzed under this
step are contained on page 29. This list includes uses which were con-
tained in five (5) major categories:
I. Manufacturing-- 33 uses
2. Services-- 5 uses
3. Transportation, Communication, and Utilities-- 7 uses
4. Construction-- 3 uses
5. Wholesale Trade-- 3 uses
6. Retail Trade-- 1 use
-27-

Several uses which were identified as being marginally possible under
the "General Analysis" were included under this analysis in order to pro-
vide the most comprehensive evaluation. The current land use (creosote
treatment), as well as municipal park development, were also included in
the analysis.
The list of factors which were used to evaluate each land use are
contained on page 32. Basically, each land use was evaluated with respect
to its desirability and market demand for the site. Desirability included
such factors as environmental impact, jobs created, multiplier effects,
financial return, etc. Market demand included such factors as need for
water transport, need for rail transport, land use interrelationship, etc.
Project Team members had different individual rankings of the land
use which would be "most desirable" and "most likely to locate" on the
site. The top seven (7) land uses ranked by each member demonstrated di-
verse opinions as to the optimum use(s) for the site; twenty-seven (27)
uses were ranked first -to -seventh by the project team. Highly ranked
uses, in order, were: -
1. Wholesale Trade-- Non -Durable Goods
2. Warehouse-- General
3. Water Transportation
4. Lumber and Wood, except Furniture
5. Heavy Construction, Non -building Construction
6. Measuring, Analyzing, and Control Instruments
7. Petroleum Refining (Tank Farms)
Step Three: Analysis of Possible and Desirable Uses:
. Under this step, the project team evaluated the twenty-seven (27) uses
which were highly ranked under the previous analysis. The factors upon
which each land use was eval.uated are listed on page 34. The factors fo-
cused on the suitability of the site for each particular land use. (The
assumption was that land uses which would have a negative environmental
impact were eliminated from consideration under the prior analysis).
Project team members' opinions still showed a diversity, but less so
than was elicited under the prior analysis. Highly ranked uses, in order,
were:
1. Water Transportation
2. Warehouse- General
3. Petroleum Refining (Tank Farms)
4. Saw and Planning Mills
5. Lumber and Wood, except Furniture
6. Wholesale Trade-- Durable Goods
N

STEP TWO: 52 LAND USES
Construction
General Contractors - Building Construction
Heavy Construction-- Non -Building Construction
Special Trade Contractors-- Electrical, Plumbing, etc.
Manufacturing
Apparel -and Other Finished Products
Bakery Products
Beverages
Candy and Other Confectionery Products
Chemicals and Allied Products except Acids, Gases and Glues
Converted Paper and Paperboard Products
Creosote Treatment
Electrical and Electronic Machinery, Equipment and Supplies
Fabricated Metal Products except Machinery and Transportation Products
Fats and Oils
Food and Kindred Products, except Stockyards or Slaughter of Animals
Furniture and Fixtures
Leather and Leather Products, excluding Tanning
Lumber and Wood Products, except Furniture
Machinery, except Electrical
Measuring, Analyzing and Controlling Instruments Photographic, Medical
and Optical Goods; Watches and Clocks
Meat Products, including Poultry and Seafood Processing and Slaughtering
Metal Forgings and Stampings
Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries
Office, Computing and Accounting Machines
- 29-

Ordinance and Accessories
Paper and Allied Products, except Pulp and Paper Manufacture
Paperboard Containers and Boxes
Petroleum Refining and Related Industries
Pottery and Related Products-- Primary Metal Products
Printing, Publishing and Allied Industries
Refrigeration and Service Industry Machinery
Saw Mills and Planning Mills
Stone; Clay, Glass and Concrete Products, except Cement, Lime, Gypsum
and Plaster of Paris
Textile Mill Products
Tires and Inner Tubes
Tobacco Manufacture
Transportation Equipment
Retail Trade
Motor Vehicle Dealers-- New and Used
Services
Indoor and Outdoor Recreational Establishments-- Commercially Operated
Industrial Launderers
Municipal Parks and Recreation Areas.
Repair Shops and Related Services-- Not.Elsewhere Classified
Welding Repair
Transportation, Communication, Utilities
Coal Terminal
Electric Services-- including substations
Junkyard-- Scrap Processing
-30-

Mini -Warehousing
Railroad Transportation, including Passenger and Freight Stations
Sanitary Services-- Garbage and Waste Incineration, Sanitary Landfill
Water Transportation
Wholesale Trade
Wholesale Trade-- Durable Goods
Wholesale Trade-- Non -Durable Goods
Warehousing-- General
-31-

STEP TWO: EVALUATION FACTORS
1. Positive Environmental Impact
2. Positive Need: River Transport
3. Positive Need: River Access
4. Positive Number Jobs Created
5. Positive Multiplier Effects
6.. Positive Financial Return to City
7. Positive Land Use Inter -Relationship
8. Positive Market for Use Intended
9. Positive Public Relations Impact
10. Low Cost Site Improvements by City
11. Low Cost Site Improvements by Private
12. Low Rail Necessity
13. Low Necessity to Expand Water System
14. Low Necessity to Expand Sewer System
15. Low Necessity to Expand Other Utilities
0
-32-

STEP THREE: 27 LAND USES
1. Electronic and Electrical Equipment, Machinery & Supplies
2. Warehouse-- General
3. Wholesale Trade-- Non -Durable Goods
4. Measuring, Analyzing and Control Instruments
5. Municipal Parks
6. Wholesale Trade-- Durable Goods
7. Transportation Equipment
8. Office, Computing, and Accounting Machines
9. Heavy Construction
10. Water Transportation
11. Furniture and Fixtures
12. Ordinance and Accessories
13. Lumber and Wood, except Furniture
14. Petroleum Refining
15. Machinery, except Electrical
16. Tires and Inner Tubes
17. Tobacco Manufacturing
18. Metal Forgings and Stampings
19. Heavy Construction-- Non -Building Construction
20. Indoor/Outdoor Recreation Establishments
21. General Construction-- Building Construction
22. Special Trade Contractors-- Electrical, Plumbing, etc.
23. Mini -Warehousing
24. Repair Shops
25. Saw and Planning Mills
26. Welding Repair
27. Coal Terminal
-33-

STEP THREE: EVALUATION FACTORS
1. User is water dependent? (River Transport or Process Water)
2. User will have good impacts on adjacent properties?
3. Adjacent users will have good impacts on user?
4. Good availability of support services or raw materials?
5. User could pay fair market lease on property?
6. Adequate acreage for user?
7. Low chance user could locate elsewhere?
8. Low rail necessity?
9. Low need to expand water, sewer, or other utilities?
-34-