Waterfront Access Plan-1998

Waterfront Access Plan
TOWN OF MOREHEAD- CITY, NC
DCM COPY DCM COPY
lease do not remove!!!!!
Division of Coastal Management
ENNCHMA R K
SNCORPORATEO
Local Govemment Services
Plannlnp, �
CommunW Development
and Manament
KANNAPOUS N.C. /KINSTIDN N.C.

1998
Waterfront Access Plan
Town of Morehead City, NC
Waterfront Access Steering_ Committee (WASCI
Councilman John Nelson, Chairman
Mayor W.C. Horton
Councilman Demus Thompson
Mr. Bud Doughton
Mr. Dick Gambill
I& Ted Odell
Ms. Evelyn Olschner
Mr. Doug Pearce
Ms. Richella Walker
Ms. Carol Wray
Town of Morehead City Staff
R. Randy Martin, City Manager
Linda Staab, Planning Director
Dave McCabe, Public Works Director
Louise Hughes, Recreation Director
Nelson Taylor, Town Attorney
Technical Assistance
Benchmark, Incorporated
' Local Government Services - Planning, Community Development and Management
Kannapolis, NC - Kinston, NC
Robert E. Clark, Planner -In -Charge
Earnest McDonald, Community Planner
John McHenry, Mapping
Andrea O'Neal, Administrative Assistance
Cynthia Rice, Landscape Architect
Landscape Architecture and Planning
Raleigh, NC
The preparation of this document was financed, in part, through a grant provided by the North Carolina Coastal Management
Program, through fiords provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, which is administered by the
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

m m m m m m= m= m m m m= m m = = =

I
Section
Table of Contents
Page No.
' Introduction..........................................................................................................................................1
1997 Land Use Plan Policies on Access.................................................................................................2
PublicParticipation...............................................................................................................................2
Public Forums Attract Interest and Provide Ideas.....................................................................2
OngoingCitizen Comment.................................................................................................... 3
' Goals Established..................................................................................................................................3
PubicComments...................................................................................................................................4
' Inventory of Existing or Potential Sites.................................................................................................4
Public Water Access Definitions.............................................................................................5
' Water Quality & Classification System....................................................................................7
' Water Quality Use -Support Ratings.........................................................................................8
Identification of Potential Access Sites..................................................................................................8
' Potential Local Access Sites.....................................................................................................8
Potential Neighborhood Access Sites.......................................................................................9
' Potential Community Access Sites.........................................................................................11
'
Potential Multi -Regional Sites...............................................................................................I
I
Recommended Improvements to Identified Local and Neighborhood Access Sites...............................12
'
Improvements to Local Access Sites......................................................................................12
Improvements to Neighborhood Access Sites.........................................................................12
Strategiesfor Implementation
..............................................................................................................16
'
Types of Facilities Appropriate for Access...........................................................................................17
Potential Local Access Site Improvements.............................................................................17
'
Potential Neighborhood and Community Access Site Improvements......................................IS
Constraints to Public Access................................................................................................................IS
1

I
'
Section
Page No.
CostEstimates.....................................................................................................................................18
'
Resources for Plan Implementation
......................................................................................................21
'
Potential Local Funding Sources............................................................................................21
Potential State and Federal Funding Sources..........................................................................21
'
Maps and Illustrations......................................................................................................................21.1
LocalAccess Improvements................................................................................................21.2
'
Neighborhood Access Improvements
...................................................................................21.3
Preliminary Community Access - N. I Vh Street. .............
..................................................... 21.4
Preliminary Community Access - S. 101" Street & S. I I" Street. .......................................... 21.5
' Appendices - A. Planning Process................................................................................................23
Phase One - Project Initiation and Inventory ...............................................23
' Phase Two - Analysis of Needs, Issues and Assets.......................................25
Phase Three - Initial Public Forum & Establishment of Goals.....................25
Establishment of Goals..................................................................26
PhaseFour - Draft Plan Preparation............................................................26
Phase Five - Finalizing the Plan ..................................................................26
' B. Copy of the Citizen Participation Strategy Resolution & List of WASC
MeetingsHeld.....................................................................................................27
Citizen Participation Strategy.....................................................................27
' Summary of Meetings Held In Preparation of the Plan........... ..................... 30
C. Summary of Public Comments Listed During the January 29, 1998
PublicForums....................................................................................................31
' D. Land Use Policies on Access...............................................................................37
' E. Regulatory Information.......................................................................................38
F. Inventory Database..............................................................................................39
' G. Funding Resources..............................................................................................40
1

Introduction
The Town of Morehead City is not under any mandate to expand or contract the existing water
access points within the municipal limits.
The idea for applying for a grant for a Coastal Waterfront Access Planning Study came from the
Town Council meeting on June 10, 1997 when the Council voted four (4) to one (1) to apply for
CAMA funds for the study. The stated goal of the study was to help consider where water access
points should be placed and to clean up the present water access locations.
A Waterfront Access Steering Committee (WASC) was appointed in the fall of 1997 by the Town
Council which emphasized that appointees were selected based on the location in which they lived
geographically in the Town's planning area and their varied points of view. The WASC was given
the responsibility for overseeing the preparation of the Waterfront Access Study which would
include an access plan and map with technical assistance provided by a Planning Team composed
of Benchmark, Inc., and the Town staff. Members of the WASC and Planning Team are listed in
the credit page at the beginning of this document. A listing of the meetings held during the
preparation of the study are listed in Appendix B.
' Benchmark, Inc. was selected as the consultant for this project by a Town selection committee
headed by Town Manager, Randy Martin. Five (5) firms expressed interest in working on the
project. Although no firm had direct experience in working on a waterfront access plan, the
' selection committee was impressed with Benchmark's citizen participation plan which included a
charette process.
' The Waterfront Access Study/Plan is basically an inventory of existing and potential water access
points, the comments from the public hearing, and the suggested uses and potential uses of the
' listed sites as researched and discussed by the WASC, Benchmark, Inc. and the Town staff.
Any decisions to expand or contract existing or potential waterfront access points within the limits
of Morehead City will ultimately be made by Morehead City's five (5) Town Council members.
The study area covered by this Plan included the entire Town limits and a larger area immediately
' outside of Town where public access points exist or have potential adjacent to the surface waters
of Bogue Sound, Newport River, Calico Creek and their tributaries.
I'
I'
It
' Morehead City Waterfront Amax PLn

1997 Land Use Plan Policies on Access
Prior to conducting an inventory of existing sites or holding any public participation meetings on
the preparation of the Waterfront Access Plan, the 1997 Town of Morehead City Land Use Plan
Update was reviewed for relevant information on policy dealing with waterfront access. There
were four (4) primary policy statements identified in the Land Use Plan related to improving
waterfront access. Those statements and strategies for implementation are found in Appendix D.
In general, those policies state that the Town of Morehead City will work to establish a waterfront
access program following preparation of a Waterfront Access Plan. Furthermore, they state the
Town would seek funds through State and Federal programs to purchase, lease and develop coastal
and estuarine water access areas and access areas along the Bogue Sound and adjoining
waterways.
The waterfront access goals and implementation strategies developed as part of this Plan are
generally consistent with the related policy statements contained in the Land Use Plan. Any
substantial differences would need to be considered in future amendments to the Land Use Plan in
order to support the solicitation of CAMA funding for waterfront access activities.
Public Participation.
A "Citizen Participation Strategy" was recommended by the WASC and adopted by the Town
Council. The strategy outlines an extensive effort to inform and involve people in developing the
Plan. A copy of the document and listing of steps taken to carry out the strategy is in Appendix B.
Public Forums Attract Interest and Provide Ideas.
Two (2) public information forums were held on January 29, 1998 at the Crystal Coast Civic
Center. The first forum was conducted from 4:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., and the second ran from 7:00
p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Both events introduced citizens to the Waterfront Access Plan Study process,
the WASC, and Planning Team. Members of both the WASC and Planning Team were introduced
and participated in the forums.
The Planning Team presented an overview of how the Plan was being developed. An introduction
to basic waterfront access types, background facts, and scheduling information was given. Other
information presented included a collection of photographs taken by the WASC members showing
scenes of existing and potential public access sites.
Small groups were then formed from the more than one hundred (100) participants. WASC
members and Town Staff facilitated discussion in these small groups, recording ideas on paper
about public water access needs, concerns, and suggestions. Each group also placed small symbols
of different types of activities on maps of the study area to show where they desired or did not
want those types of activities. Group facilitators summarized the results by displaying the work
along a wall for everyone to see and comment.
M"dmd City Weafi-o t Ao Plan 2

The public forums revealed a host of interests and concerns. A summary is provided in Appendix
B. Many of those citizens present expressed a desire for an attractive area somewhere outside of
residential neighborhoods but within town where residents and visitors who do not live on the
waterfront would have a place to enjoy sailing, fishing, sunbathing, watching birds, or other
recreational opportunities. This was offered as a way to alleviate the overuse of street ends in
residential areas and eliminate the encroachment of vehicles onto private property. The main
suggestion from those present at the public forums was for the town to "clean up" existing street
ends, allow only pedestrian access at residential sites, and make no improvements to any local
access site that would make one more attractive than any other site of the same type.
There was also discussion about the need for an additional small boat launch facility in the town
and interest expressed about the possibility of using the Calico Creek for this purpose. In addition,
there was discussion about the need for additional facilities to accommodate a small boat launch
site on Bogue Sound, away from the overcrowded 35°i Street boat ramp.
Ongoing Citizen Comment
The WASC has met frequently in the preparation of the Plan. At least one dozen citizens and the
print media have been present at each of these meetings to observe the WASC and Planning Team
as they developed the study's goals and discussed the research and many ideas that evolved
through three revisions of the preliminary draft plan. Generally, there was time at the conclusion of
these meetings when the audience made comments and had questions that were addressed by the
WASC and Planning Team.
The WASC, Town Council, and Planning Team shared copies and considered correspondence from
the many local residents and property owners who thoughtfully shared their ideas about water
access. Members of the WASC spent many hours researching the array of issues and talking with
citizens before coming to meetings and sharing those ideas.
Goals Established
The WASC, after holding public forums and receiving public input, drafted the following goals to
frame the desired outcomes of the Waterfront Access Plan.
To investigate and prepare a Waterfront Access Plan and Map for the Town of Morehead
City's shoreline, including the planning jurisdiction or planning area;
2. To develop the Plan with direct community participation and consensus building;
3. To prepare a Plan that is based on CAMA guidelines for waterfront access types;
4. To identify appropriate access within existing neighborhoods, while maintaining the
integrity of the neighborhood;
Mmhad City Wgftfiom Access Phn

5. To prepare a Waterfront Access Plan that recognizes the need for and accommodates
appropriate waterfront development in sensitive environmental areas;
' 6. To identify appropriate community level access;
t7. To maintain the public health, safety, and general welfare.
Public Comments
■ The Town Council of Morehead City met in joint session with the WASC on Tuesday, June 23,
_ 1998, at 7:00 p.m., in the Crystal Coast Civic Center in Morehead City, NC. The purpose of the
' joint session was to review the final draft of the Waterfront Access Plan prepared by the Planning
Team and WASC, as well as, receive public comments. Approximately, 120 people attended.
' There were fifteen (15) speakers and two (2) petititions presented.
Inventory of Existing or Potential Sites
1 Prior to beginning the inventory process outlined above, the Planning Team collected base data in
the form of aerial photographs of the planning area adjacent to the Bogue Sound and surrounding
1 tributaries. Using this data as a point of beginning, "windshield surveys" were conducted to
determine which areas adjacent to the waterfront were undeveloped and had potential for
waterfront access, either in the form of boat access or pedestrian access.
' Initially, there were sixty-nine (69) water access points identified for study in the inventory
' database (See Appendix E). Five (5) of them appear to be in private ownership, following
additional research by the Town Attorney, while the others are public. Each site is assigned a
corresponding Site Identification Number (SIN) on the accompanying maps. The sites consist of
' rights -of -way street ends and public properties owned by the Town of Morehead City. The typical
street end is a fifty (50) or sixty (60) foot wide area ending at or continuing beyond the mean high
watermark. Some are partially paved from an intersecting street (i.e., Bay Street, Shackleford
' Street, and Evans Street) for a distance short of the shoreline. Most provide primary or secondary
access to adjoining properties. Most sites offer visual connections to water. Sites adjacent to
Calico Creek yield to marsh; concrete rubble, or other stabilizing "rip -rap" These sites are also
t subject to noticeable tidal fluctuations. Sites along Bogue Sound are susceptible to wave erosion
and mostly yield to narrow bands of sandy beaches.
' The site inventory process revealed that although Morehead City and its planning area has more
than seven (7) miles of waterfront primarily along Bogue Sound, Calico Creek, and the Newport
River, most properties are in private ownership. Furthermore, the WASC excluded the study of
public alleys for public water access.
' Morehead City Wawn*mt Access Plan

Public Water Access Definitions
' The Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) guidelines provide five (5) basic classifications of
public waterfront accesses. They are:
' Local Access Sites
► Neighborhood Access Sites
' Community Access Sites
► Multi -regional Access Sites
► Urban Waterfront Redevelopment Projects
' After studying the Coastal Resources Commission's definitions of `Basic Public Water Access,"
the Planning Team and WASC further defined them for application to local conditions and needs.
' However, it is the Local and Neighborhood Access classifications that Will be considered as the
primary scope of the Waterfront Access Plan. It is noted by an asterisk (*) where the WASC and
Planning Team recommended modifications to the CAMA definitions.
' Local Access Sites
CHARACTERIZED BY:
' Public access points (generally at street ends)
► Minimum or no facilities
► No "directional" signage leading to the site
' ► Principal use by pedestrians who reside within a few hundred yards of the
site
► No parking areas provided
' Limited use hours where necessary
► Hand launching only of small boats and water craft. No ramps provided
' No handicapped access provided *
► Two (2) Live Oak or other species of street trees
► Shoreline protection (if needed) *
' Lawn, planted with St. Augustine grass up to the marsh or erosion zone
instead of pavement to shoreline *
► Bollards or distinctive markers (spaced 8 feet apart), with "waterfront
' access" symbol *
► Markers to demarcate between private and public land spaces
' Neighborhood Access Sites
CHARACTERIZED BY:
► Principal use by individuals near the site or within the immediate subdivision
' Typically 40-60 feet of width (street right-of-way)
► No "directional" signage leading to the site
► Limited use hours where necessary
' Handicapped access provided *
Morehead City Weahont Access Pin
11

► Five (5) standard parking spaces & one (1) handicapped space
► Two (2) Live Oak or other species of street trees *
► Lawn, planted with St. Augustine grass up to the marsh or erosion zone
► Four (4) foot wide boardwalk for shore access *
► Litter receptacles
► Bike rack
► Limited lighting
► Shoreline protection (if needed)
► Bollards or distinctive markers with "waterfront access" symbol
► Markers to demarcate between private and public land spaces *
► Hand launching only of boats and small water craft. No ramps provided.
Community Access Sites
CHARACTERIZED BY:
► Service of the public throughout the community, including day visitors
► Where possible, usually has one-half acre open space in addition to all
required setback areas for buffering, day use, nature study or similar
purposes
► 25-80 parking spaces
► Crossover or path
► Pier
► Four (4) foot wide boardwalk for shore access
► Litter receptacles
► Public access signs
► Shoreline protection (if needed)
► Restrooms, where feasible *
► Foot showers, where feasible
► Small boat launching and hand launching
Multi -Regional Access Sites
CHARACTERIZED BY:
► A site larger than community access but smaller than state parks
► Two acres of open space, where possible, in addition to all required setbacks
provided for buffering, day use, nature study or similar purposes
► 80-100 parking spaces
► Various facilities (pier, boat ramp, etc.)
► Restrooms
► Indoor showers and changing rooms
► Concession stand(s)
I
II
II Morehead City Waterfront Access Plan
11

Urban Waterfront
CHARACTERIZED BY:
' Active commercial, water -dependent and non water -dependent uses
► Promenade or boardwalk for pedestrians
► Boat slips and bulkheads *
► Located in the Downtown or Central Business District
► Non motorized boat rentals *
' Commercial boat taxi services
► Floating docks for day and overnight boat dockage
► Off street parking *
Water Quality & Classification System
All surface waters in the State of North Carolina are assigned a Water Quality Classification,
based on the level of pollution present. Water quality classifications were identified for each site in
the inventory and examined for recommended best uses. The word "uses" refers to activities such
as swimming, fishing, aquatic life protection, and water supply.
Table 1 shows the types of uses recommended for each classification of water and the number of
sites in each class. Appendix E contains the database with water quality classification by site.
Table 1
Water Quality Classifications
Morehead City, NC
Primary
No of
Recommended Best Uses
Classifications
Sites
SC
20
Aquatic life propagation and secondary recreation activities
such as fishing, boating, & water -related activities involving
minimal skin contact.
SB
4
Primary recreation activities such as swimming, which occur on
a frequent or organized basis, plus Class SC best uses.
SA
40
Commercial shell fishing and harvesting, and all Class SC & SB
best uses.
Source: A Guide to North Carolina's Tidal Saltwater Classifications, Cape Pear Council of Grnernnunts at 1997 Morehead City CAMA land User
Plan
Morehead City Waterfront Accaa Plan
7
11

Water Quality Use -Support Ratings
Another important method of accessing water quality is to determine whether the quality is
sufficient to support the uses for which the water body has been classified by the State. Again, the
word `uses" refers to activities such as swimming, fishing, aquatic life protection, and water
supply. All surface waters are rated as either "fully -supporting" (S), "support -threatened" (ST),
"partially -supporting" (PS), or "non -supporting" (NS). The terms refer to whether the classified
uses of the water are being fully supported, partially supported, or are not supported. For example,
saltwater classified for commercial shellfish harvesting would be rated as fully supporting if
bacterial levels in the water were low enough to allow harvesting. However, if fecal coliform
bacterial levels were too high to allow shellfish to be harvested, but not too high to prevent
swimming, the waters would be rated as partially -supporting since they only support swimming as
an activity. If the waters were impacted to the point that even swimming was disallowed, the
waters would be rated as non -supporting.
The inventory indicates thirty (30) sites where waters are supporting and thirty-four (34) sites
where waters are partially supporting, (See Appendix F: Inventory Database)
Identification of Potential Access Sites
Forty-three (43) sites were classified only for their potential as improved local access points.
Thirteen (13) other sites have neighborhood -level potential. Of those neighborhood -level sites,
three (3) sites, N. 11' Street, S. I& Street and S. 11' Street, could be Brother considered for
"community -level" access improvements. The public boat ramp at 35' Street, though identified as
a neighborhood -level site by the study, serves regional or multi -regional clientele, in addition to the
Morehead City population. Collectively, the six (6) waterfront sites between S. 3rd Street and S. 9°i
Street serve as an urban waterfront redevelopment access area. All sites are shown on the potential
Waterfront Access Sites Map.
Potential Local Access Sites
During the public forums and other public input, citizens expressed a desire to improve Morehead
City owned street ends by simply "cleaning them up" and providing a minimum of facilities in
keeping with the concept of "Local Access."
Local access points along Bogue Sound are mostly found west of S I I'h Street and along Calico
Creek from N 6ih Street to N 25rd Street. They primarily provide the immediate residents with
opportunities for strolling, bird watching, informal gatherings, swimming or sunbathing along the
shore or just offshore on sandbars, and portage areas for hand launched skiffs, kayaks, and wind
surfing boards. The land rises to a slight bluff, west of Carteret Community College and provides
vistas from some street ends and along Sound Drive and Coral Point Drive.
Rights -of -way for Lake Avenue and Salem Street extend to Pelletier Creek, yet the private
Maehml City WMFIIfi t Aa Plea

encroachment of small docks or boat slips, which block public access, can be found along the
waterline. Heavy traffic along U.S. 70 makes vehicular access to these dead end locations difficult
from outside the immediate block. The boating and docking of larger craft at Coral Bay Marina
and U.S. 70 West Marina dominate the creek's usage.
Based on the modified definition of appropriate local access, a prototype design was prepared to
illustrate the concept. It is recommended that one (1) or more sites will be chosen for initial
improvements using only local funds. Once these sites are improved, the Town Council would seek
information from nearby property owners, people from the larger neighborhoods, and those town
officials responsible for the management and maintenance of the sites to help determine whether
some or all of the remaining site improvements will be made.
Proposed neighborhood site improvements will be selected, funded, and evaluated in the same
manner.
Potential Neighborhood Access Sites
The Planning Team under the guidance of WASC, identified thirteen (13) sites that are either being
used informally for hand launched boat or pedestrian access or have potential for local or
neighborhood improvements. All sites listed below are shown on the Site Maps.
The following is a description of the identified potential and neighborhood sites and their current
uses.
Site 7 S. 10th Street. This site is a street end with a sixty (60) foot right-of-way, fifty (50)
feet of which is paved. Utilities are available on the site. It is a vacant tract owned
by the Town, surrounded by single-family, commercial and office uses, in addition
to being adjacent to the open water of the Bogue Sound. The site is currently
zoned Commercial Marina Downtown and Residential 5-S and is surrounded by
other properties of the same classifications. The 1997 Morehead City CAMA Land
Use Plan designates the site into a SC water quality class and rates the water quality
as partially -supporting.
Site 8 S. 11th Street. This is a street end owned by the Town. It is currently open space
with a sixty (60) foot wide right-of-way and fifty (50) feet of pavement width. It is
surrounded by open water, single-family uses, and other vacant property. The site
is zoned Residential 5-S and is surrounded by other properties of the same
classification. The water use class for the site is SC, and the water quality is rated
as partially -supporting.
Site 20 S. 24th Street. This is a street -end owned by the State of North Carolina. It is the
former site where the Old Causeway Bridge joined to link Morehead City with
Atlantic Beach over the Bogue Sound. This site has potential for local access, with
Mmhad cay wffiQsom Am= Plea 9

a seventy (70) foot wide right-of-way that could be used as a neighborhood park or
"commons." The site provides a comprehensive view over the Bogue Sound
toward the Town of Atlantic Beach and of the New Causeway Expansion Bridge.
Potential also exists for both active and passive recreational opportunities.
Surrounding land uses are single-family in an area zoned as Residential 5-S. The
water use classification for the site is SA, and the water quality is rated as
supporting.
Site 31 S. 34th Street -NC Wildlife AccessBoat Ramp. This site is adjacent to the State of
North Carolina Wildlife Access, a regional facility complete with off-street parking
facilities, litter receptacles, water fountains, restrooms, boat launch facilities,
lighting, and phones. Adjacent to the site are single-family uses and a marine
research station. The water use classification for the site is SA and the water quality
is rated as supporting.
Site 46 Ba)ndew Avenue (At Pelletier Creek). This is a Town -owned street end with a fifty
(50) foot right-of-way. It is adjacent to the open water of Pelletier Creek and is
surrounded by single-family and multi -family uses, consistent with the Residential 7
and Planned Development zoning districts. The water use class for this site is SB,
and the water quality is rated as partially -supporting.
Sites 49 & 50 N. 23rd Street and N. 22"d Street. This street right-of-way ends at Calico Creek, in
a residential subdivision. It is an open site with a SC water quality class and is rated
as partially -supporting.
Site 55 N. 13th Street. This site is a typical sixty (60) foot wide street end, owned by the
Town. It is surrounded by single-family development within an area of Residential
5 zoning. The water use class for the site is SC, and the water quality is rated as
partially -supporting.
Site 57 N. 11 th Street. This is a Town -owned open site adjacent to extensive marsh areas.
It is a sixty (60) foot wide street end, with fifty (50) feet of paved street. The site is
zoned as a Flood Plain District, surrounded by single-family uses. The water use
class is SA, and the water quality is rated as partially -supporting.
Site 52 Between N. 16" Street and N. 17th Street. This site is located behind the Recreation
Center and is owned by the Town. It consists of a combination of two (2) sixty
(60) foot rights -of -way and a Town -owned tract, adjacent to an extensive marsh
area. It is surrounded on all other sides by single-family uses. The zoning for this
site and surrounding properties is Residential 5-S, consistent with the pattern of
nearby, single-family development. The water use class is SC, and the water quality
is rated as partially -supporting.
Morehead city w,rafroet Ax Plea 10

Site 62 N. 6th Street. This site consists of a typical sixty (60) foot wide street end, owned
by the Town, adjacent to open marsh. It is surrounded by open marsh and has
single-family uses on adjacent properties that are zoned primarily as Flood Plain
District. The water use class for the site is SA, and the water quality is rated as
partially -supporting.
Site 64 N. 20th Street (At Calico Creek Crossing). This site offers a good view of Calico
Creek on both the west and east sides of N. 20' Street bridge. There is open and
undeveloped publicly -owned marsh land on the south bank near the cemetery.
There is also a Town owned sewer pump station site immediately northwest of the
causeway. This site has potential for scenic views, wildlife access, and fishing.
Other features worth noting is an existing sidewalk on the east side of the bridge
and an exposed sewer pipe. A boardwalk over the pipe and parallel to the bridge
could separate pedestrians and cyclists from N 20' Street traffic while providing a
good view of Calico Creek's assets. It is surrounded by single-family uses and
undeveloped marsh, most of which is currently unzoned. The water use class is SC,
and the water quality is rated as partially -supporting.
Site 67 Blair Point (Southwest of Haystacks where County Club Road ends). This is an
undeveloped site adjacent to the road and not within the single-family uses currently
under construction. A beautiful view of Calico Bay stretches southward to town.
The land pattern for this area is primarily established for low -density single-family
uses, under the zoning classification Residential 15. There is potential for passive
recreation along the west side and southwest end of Country Club Road. The water
use class for the site is SA, and the water quality is rated as partially -supporting.
Potential Community Access Sites
Three sites listed above as potential neighborhood access sites also have potential to be community
level access sites because of their proximity to commercial waterfront activities. They include Site
7 (S 10 ' Street), Site 8 (S 11' Street), and Site 57 (N 11' Street). Illustrative concept site
drawings of these sites as they may function are provided for consideration.
Potential Multi -Regional Access Sites
There were no sites considered for Multi -Regional Access within the Study Area. The Town has
indicated a desire to coordinate with Carteret County's efforts to create a County Recreation
Master Plan and encourage the construction of a multi -regional access point on publicly -owned
property, outside of the Town's corporate limits but close enough to serve the needs of the Town.
This would possibly alleviate the demand being placed on the boat ramp at the Welcome Center on
35th Street.
Morehead City WaterfrrnLL Ax Play
11
11

Recommended Improvements to Identified Local and Neighborhood Access
Sites
During the site inventory process, it was determined that the Town of Morehead City owns a
sizable portion of waterfront property that can be improved for local and neighborhood access. It
consists mostly of street rights -of -way that end at the waterfront on the north and south shores of
town. It may however, be necessary to obtain additional properties for community, multi -regional
or urban access through land donation, lease agreements, or land acquisition in order to proceed
with a more extensive waterfront access program.
Improvements to Local Access Sites
Local access sites at the ends of streets on the North and South shores will be improved as stated
on the following page. See the prototype site plan drawings.
Improvements to Neighborhood Access Sites
Sites 7 & 8 S 10h Street and S. 11' Street. The street right-of-way ends are located
immediately west of the Jaycee Park and urban waterfront at S. 9'h Street. By
incorporating the design principles of the neighborhood access type of usage into
these locations, the transition from more intensive public access associated with the
downtown could be prevented from encroaching into the residential neighborhood
north of Shepard Street and west of S. I Id' Street.
S. 1 Oth Street offers the best opportunity to consider a boat ramp for smaller water.
craft in combination with other improvements, such as a floating dock, parking for
boat trailers if a portion of the commercial fishing property east of the street could
be acquired, and possibly a shelter with restrooms.
S. 1 Ith Street has the potential to provide a floating wooden dock or pier. It would
be important to implement greater nighttime use restrictions in association with the
neighborhood level access prototype. Zoning of the undeveloped properties east
and west of the street end is residential. Housing construction is anticipated there in
the future. Parking should be limited compared to S. 10°i Street, to minimize
impacts to future residential development.
Boat trailer parking restrictions would need to be placed on the 1000 and 1100
blocks of Shepard Street if a small boat ramp and wooden floating dock were
considered at these locations. To accommodate parking associated with the small
boat ramp at S. 10'h Street, it would be possible to use the existing nineteen spaces
at S. 9fh, but additional boat trailer and car parking spaces would be needed at S.
10' Street as shown on the following preliminary community access concept
drawing. The linkage of S. 10 h Street to S. 911 Street could be achieved through the
Morchad City Weafiom Mass Plm 12

existing sidewalk along the south side of Shepard Street.
Sites 62,61,55 N. Oh Street, N. 7" Street and N. 13" Street. These sites are located along Calico
Bay where open marsh areas are present. These sites offer beautiful vistas of the
Calico Creek and Calico Bay and the adjacent marsh areas. Additional facilities for
each of these sites would include a waterfront boardwalk and incidental landscaping
elements of the neighborhood access prototype design.
Town officials and local housing authority representatives have also discussed the
potential for neighborhood -level improvements to the end of N. 131h Street and
other adjacent properties on the Calico Creek side of Bayview Homes.
N. 11'h Street. The town might consider using a combination of N. 11 t° Street right-
of-way and purchase or arrange a long term lease (25-30 years) for property on
either side of the street end. The presence of a commercial development at this
location provides a more compatible use situation for establishing a small waterfront
access site adjacent to the Calico Creek.
The neighborhood design prototype provided in this plan could be extended from
six (6) parking spaces to ten (10) or fifteen (15) to maximize the level of activity
associated with neighborhood access, while serving the local citizenry of the Town.
A boardwalk, floating dock or small boat ramp to accommodate the safe landing of
small sailboats, kayaks and recreational fishing boats or skiffs could be added in the
future.
Site 52 N. 16' Street & N. 17' Street. This marsh -front area located behind the Recreation
Center provides a beautiful vista of the extensive marsh areas adjacent to the Calico
Creek. Additional facilities would include all of the prototype local access
improvements, including boardwalk, pier and screening elements of the
neighborhood prototype design.
Site 64 N. 20 Street. The N. 20h Street Bridge crosses the Calico Creek and provides one
of the best sites for wildlife observation in the planning area. Much of this marsh -
front location is wooded and located adjacent to properties that are developed with
residential land uses. This site is also in a high visibility location with access to
town sidewalks. Proposed facilities include a boardwalk, pedestrian trail system and
scenic overlooks at the south shore area off of the cemetery property and
somewhere along the boardwalk that could be built above the exposed sewer main
east of the causeway. A designated parking area on public property south of Calico
Creek is also recommended.
Sites 49 & 50 N. 13id Street & N22nd Street. This is a marsh -front area located in the vicinity of
Macon Court. Like N. 16' Street and N. 171h Street, this site provides a beautiful
Morehead City Waterhont ncctas Plan 13

vista of the extensive marsh areas adjacent to Calico Creek. Facilities would include
all of the prototype local access improvements, including boardwalk, pier and
screening elements of the neighborhood prototype design.
Site 67 Blair Point (Southwest of Haystacks at the end of Country Cluh Road). This site
provides a comprehensive view of both the Calico Bay and Newport River, adjacent
to a newly developed and developing residential area. Site improvements would
include a waterfront boardwalk with a nature trail. Properties adjacent but outside
the new subdivision along the waterfront are held in private ownership and would
require land donation, lease or purchase.
Site 46 Bayview Avenue. Adjacent to the Pelletier Creek, this site is located in the vicinity
of other commercial marinas. The presence of a commercial development at this
location provides a more compatible use situation for establishing a small waterfront
access place site adjacent to Pelletier Creek. Improvements to the site would
primarily follow the local access prototype design. However, elements of the
neighborhood prototype, such as a walkway, boardwalk or pier for shore access, a
tie-up for small boats and evergreen screening could be provided.
Site 20 S. 24" Street. Adjacent to a residential neighborhood, this site is a remnant of the
■
Old Causeway Bridge that linked Morehead City with Atlantic Beach before the
completion of the High Rise Extension Causeway Bridge. The existing street end
'
right-of-way is filled by the bridge and wide enough to qualify the site as a
neighborhood access type, except there is no vehicular access to the site other than
through the adjacent residential neighborhood. Three (3) alternatives for
'
improvement are offered for consideration.
The existing expanse of pavement could be removed entirely to implement elements
of the local access prototype. The North Carolina Department of Transportation
could be requested to demolish the structure. However, funding for complete
demolition may be difficult to obtain and the existence of overhead and underground
'
utilities may complicate removal and open the site to some less than desirable views.
Also, there may be merit in preserving at least a portion of the old structure as a
historic landmark. The Town would be responsible for any local access
'
improvements should the bridge be removed.
A second choice would involve modification of the existing concrete bridge
structure by removing the last segment of broken concrete and the chain link fence,
placing planters and bollards off the Evans Street entrance and building a
' boardwalk overlook at the water's edge. Improvements under the bridge and the
provision of security personnel would also need consideration. Incidental cosmetic
improvements and other elements of the local access prototype could be considered.
' Designation as a local or state landmark is also recommended under this option.
Mmhe" City Wa afiot t Aooese Plan
14
11

A third possibility would be to connect the bridge to a neighborhood park or some
other non -water access use. Meanwhile, residents along Evans Street still observe
drivers from other areas meandering through the neighborhood until they reach S.
24' Street and realize the old bridge is gone and they have made a wrong turn.
Relocation of the official "Wildlife Viewing" sign standing near the intersection of
S. 25m Street at Arende'll Street should be pursued. Its placement to the
unaccustomed visitor could be an invitation to turn right onto S. 25" Street.
Site 35 NC Wildlife Access. This site is the location of the North Carolina Wildlife Access
and is adjacent to the Town's only boat launch facility. This site is in a high
visibility location with good access to town sidewalks and the surrounding
commercial area. It also provides an excellent scenic view of the Bogue Sound.
There is a major parking overflow problem along Evans Street and S 34' Street
during peak times when the Visitors Center and boat ramp are in full use. The
Town has considered making Evans Street a one-way street going west bound,
adding other parking restrictions, and even blocking the end of Evans Street past S.
34di Street at peak times or permanently. The WASC also discussed asking the
Wildlife Commission to provide someone to manage the parking/ramp's use at or
near its capacity and direct users to other regional boat ramps. The WASC
recommends that the Town Council approach the Carteret Community College
Board of Trustees and the Wildlife Commission to see if overflow parking can be
accommodated at college parking facilities. Appropriate signage and improved
pedestrian access along the south side of Arendell Street would need to be
considered as well.
Morehead city wa fffivd Ao PM 15

' Strategies for Implementation
In conjunction with using the prototype local, neighborhood and community access designs in the
suggested locations, the WASC and Planning Team further emphasize its recommendations for the
' following actions:
1. Consider adopting no parking zones for recreational vehicles and boat trailers along a
' stretch of Evans Street near the 35th Street Boat Ramp.
2. Request that the Wildlife Commission and Carteret Community College allow the use of
' college parking facilities for overflow parking from the boat ramp. Having better control of
the parking problem by the Wildlife Commission is needed.
' 3. Clearly claim and mark public properties and rights -of -way using a simple but distinctive
marker system.
' 4. Introduce the Town's "adopt a lot" program at public street ends throughout town to
improve their appearance.
' 5. Adopt plans and policies that disperse limited water access usage among all street ends for
the primary benefit of Morehead City's citizens.
' 6. Install standardized logos, specific to each type of access, to help police ensure compliance
with local ordinances regulating the parking of vehicles.
Install aesthetically pleasing and passive signage to identify each public access site.
8. Coordinate with Carteret County's efforts to create a County Recreation Master Plan and
encourage the construction of a multi -regional access point on publicly -owned property,
outside of the Town's corporate limits but close enough to serve the needs of the Town.
9. Consider eliminating pavement at local street ends beyond driveways that serve adjoining
properties where parking problems exist. This, along with the use of bollards, will
discourage undesired parking.
10. Allow the hand launching of small boats at local access points, provided that trailer parking
is not permitted.
11. Apply for State or Federal funding that is supportive of the policies in this Plan.
' Mmehead City WaUrfrrna Ax Plan
16
11

Types of Facilities Appropriate for Access
' The site inventory process revealed that although Morehead City has extensive property along the
waterfront primarily adjacent to Bogue Sound, Calico Bay, and Newport River, much of it is in
private ownership. During the public forums, citizens and local officials expressed the desire to
' improve Town -owned street ends by "cleaning them up" and providing a minimum of facilities in
keeping with the concept of "Local" access. With three (3) exceptions, the thirteen (13) primary
' neighborhood access sites have been classified by the Planning Team and WASC as Neighborhood
Access Sites.
' Public street ends at the waters' edge, within residential neighborhoods, are to be left accessible to
the public through informal usage. Distinctive markers near the entrance to these sites are
recommended to clearly show where public and private ownership rights are established.
' A "low key" approach to Local Access site design will be taken, where distinctive planting, limited
lighting, litter receptacles, and marine type marker bollards will be provided. The sites will be
' framed with Live Oaks and sod or planted with St. Augustine grass up to the marsh or the erosion
zone.
' Potential Local Access Site Improvements
Local access points along Bogue Sound are found west of S. 1 lth Street to S. 33rd Street and
' primarily provide the immediate neighborhood residents opportunities for strolling; bird watching;
informal gatherings; and portage places for placing skiffs, kayaks, and wind surfing boards in and
' out of the Sound. Swimming and sunbathing areas may be found at some street ends or just
offshore on sandbars.
' The land rises to a slight bluff, west of Carteret Community College and provides vistas from some
street ends and along Sound Drive and Coral Point Drive. The terrain limits portage for small
water craft.
Rights -of -way for Lake Avenue, Bayview Avenue, and Salem Streets extend to Pelletier Creek, yet
the private encroachment of small docks or boat slips, which block public access, can be found
along the waterline. Heavy traffic on U.S.70 makes vehicular access to these dead end locations
difficult from outside the immediate block. The boating and docking of larger craft at Coral Bay
Marina dominate the creek's usage.
As previously described, there are forty-three (43) local access sites. Based upon the modified
definition of appropriate local access, a prototype design was prepared to accompany the
recommended definition of local access. After a trial period, and based upon further review and
evaluation by the town, additional sites may be approved depending on the availability of funds.
Furthermore, additional sites should be improved in a disbursed pattern so no one neighborhood is
likely to become overused.
Morehead City Waterfraa Access Plan 17

Potential Neighborhood and Community Access Site Improvements
The Planning Team under the guidance of the WASC, identified thirteen (13) sites that are either
being used informally for small boat or pedestrian access or have potential for improved
neighborhood access. All the sites identified in the following list are shown on the Existing &
Potential Waterfront Access Site Maps.
Constraints to Public Access
In an effort to determine if there were any major constraints to providing access to the waterfront,
the Planning Team considered several factors. One of the primary constraints to providing public
access to the waterfront is the legal status of each individual street end. There is evidence to
suggest that at least five (5) of the potential local access sites originally inventoried in the study are
closed to public use, and there may be other sites.
The sites identified as potential neighborhood access sites may require lease agreements, easements
or the purchase of adjacent properties, in order to provide improved public access to the
waterfront.
Cost Estimates
Table 2 shows the cost estimates for recommended local, neighborhood and community access site
improvements.
Table 2
1998 Waterfront Access Plan Preliminary Cost Estimates
Morehead City, NC
Item Unit Cost Notes
Demolition & Site Preparation $12-15 per Removal of existing pavement, vegetation,
cubic yard or other elements not
conforming to the plus landfill standard
of the access development type fees.
2. Improvements:
A. Street Furninire
Trash containers $383.25ea Existing containers throughout the
Downtown. Graphic sign plate provided
by Town for application by vendor.
Exclusive of shipping 10% discount
Morehead City WataSord Aerie Plan 18

Item
Bollards/with seal
Optional Street Lights
Bike Racks
B. Site Improvements
Survey Markers
Paving
C.
Curb Stops
Plantings
Trees
Shrubs
Lawn
Unit Cost Notes
applied to orders of 20 or more.
a) $350ea
a)To match those on the downtown
waterfront.
b) $170
b)Altemate steelhin3l coated 4"post.
$181.50ea
To match those on the downtown
$10/month
waterfront. Additional reflectors to direct
light toward ground & cutoff toward
residences. Underground wiring
recommended; 16' black, fiberglass pole,
Village Collection light, with CP&I, lease.
$182
Match existing, if in place
Standard concrete monument type
$2/Sq.Ft. Minor repair, patch existing asphalt where
parking is included.
$17.50ea. Utilize curb stops where there is no
Including curb in place. Investigate newer recycled
debar/Town content for harsh coastal environment.
pick up
$90041,000 Species tolerant to coastal conditions
ca. (E.g., Live Oak and large size to create
impact visually); min. 2 '/2 caliper
installed. Cost will vary based on size,
species, and shipping.
$35.00ea Species tolerant to coastal conditions (e.g.,
Pittosporum); planted to screen parking
from adjoining properties.
$0.65/Sq.Ft. St. Augustine sod, installed price. Sod is
recommended for immediate impact &
lower maintenance after installation.
Maehud City Wdufvrl Ae Plan 19

Item
Unit Cost
Notes
3. Other Improvements
A.
Piers Boardwalks
$1500-1800
Length will vary based on unique
site/waterfront conditions. Sections of 8 ft
wide/40 ft long & average piling depth.
B.
Boat Ramps
$10-$15 Sq Ft.
Length varies based on unique
siteftvaterfront conditions. Geo-grid
plastic mat
C.
Picnic Shelters
$2500-$5000
Standard design available from
ea.
catalogs.
D.
Restroonz4hower Bldgs.
$100-$150
SF cost will vary based on difficulty
Sq.Ft.
of utility access and materials/finishes
selected. Cost per SF assumes no land
purchase is necessary.
Notes: 1.
Unit costs assume linuted contractor participation, nwetwort cunipleted by Morehead City Public Works Deparbncnt.
2.
AeWalprojeeteostswilivary•bsamunique
site eonditimand desipsclected
3.
Unit costs supplied by Cynthia Rice,
ASIA and Dave McCabe, Public Waits Director based on recad actual costs. in 1999
dollars.
Morehead City Waterfront Access Plan 20

Resources for Plan Implementation
A main function of the Waterfront Access Plan is to help the Town of Morehead City proceed from
the prepared site inventory, analysis, and selection to site development. Adequate funding is
needed to create or improve water access sites. The Planning Team suggests the town apply for
the following public and private funds to carry out the improvements recommended in the
Waterfront Access Plan. The public and private funding of improvements to neighborhood or
above access points using locally -approved designs, use policies, maintenance, and security may be
used in lieu of CAMA or other outside funding if such funding requires placement of directional
signs beyond the improved sites. The town will seek State and Federal funds to implement
neighborhood, community, regional, and urban waterfront level access projects.
In addition to requesting outside funding, the town will need to allocate local financial resources in
the its annual budget to provide any needed local match and for future improvements and
maintenance of public facilities.
A. Potential Local Funding Sources
The Town of Morehead City will bear the greatest burden with regard to providing public
access on a local scale. The Town will have to install improvements without grant
assistance, as well as, supply the resources for the daily and long-term maintenance of the
access facility improvements proposed by the Waterfront Access Plan.
Some of the potential funding sources available to the Town include general fund revenues,
general obligation bond revenues, impact fees, occupancy tax revenues, subdivision
regulation dedication requirements, parking fees, and volunteer efforts.
The Town of Morehead City should continue support for developing a Carteret County
Recreation Master Plan. Additional countywide, regional or multi -regional water access
components of future parks should be funded by Carteret County and available State and
Federal funding.
B. Potential State and Federal Funding Sources
Potential State and Federal funding sources for the improvement of waterfront access
include the following:
State
► Public Beach and Coastal Waterfront Access Funds
► Small Cities Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
► Clean Water Management Trust Fund
► Water Resources Project Funds (NC Division of Water Quality)
► North Carolina "Adopt a Trail" Program
Mmhad City Wgftt nt Ac Plan 21

North Carolina Parks & Recreation Trust Fund
Federal
► Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)
► Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
Maintaining local control and limiting directional signs to improved local and neighborhood
waterfront access sites will take precedence over gaining State or Federal funding if such
funding includes requirements that are contrary to the recommendations in this Plan. Some
of the above possible sources would not be easy to compete for if the public beneficiaries of
the proposed public improvements.are very limited (e.g. primarily to immediate area
residents). Typically, it is easier to compete for grant funds when it can be demonstrated
that at least an entire neighborhood or specific population will be benefitted (as is the case
with CDBG funds).
As has been demonstrated by the substantial improvements to the Downtown Urban
Waterfront, grant funds can be very helpful in undertaking projects serving a larger
population for recreation and commerce. Likewise, should the Town proceed with the
suggested Community Access or higher level types of access improvements to sites at S.
1 Oth Street, S. 11th Street, and N. 11th Street, outside funding may be possible while
maintaining local management control of the improved sites. Therefore, each possible State
or Federal source should be viewed on a case by case basis.
' Morehead City Watafiwd Am= Pim 22

C
a
0 1
103
y
W
0
m
®LU
V
L I
��
,., U u
aca
WP 14
�++ .WJ
W a $
Oa e 3
� a
pmom
a
I-- m M M /4m

Waterfront Access Plan Summary
Morehead City
North Carolina
This two sided fold out provides a sr mmmy of the main document,
including highlights of the process leading to the inventory,
description, and proposed uses of public properties .
The Map on the reverse side show potential access sites and
Background: The Town of Morehead City is not under any mandate
to expand or contract the existing
water access points.
The idea for applying for a grant for a
Coastal Waterfront access Planning
Study came from the Town Council
meeting on June 10, 1997 when the
Council voted four to one to apply for
CAMA funds for the study. The
stated goal of the study was to help consider where water access
should be placed and to clean up the present water access locations.
A Waterfront Access Steering Committee (WASC) was appointed in
the fall of 1997 by the Town Council that emphasized that
appointments were made based upon the location in which they lived
geographically in the Town's planning area and their varied points of
view. The WASC was given the responsibility for overseeing the
preparation of the Waterfront Access Study which would include an
access plan and map with technical assistance provided by a Planning
Team composed of Benchmark, Inc, and the Town Staff.
The Waterfront Access Plan contains an inventory of existing and
potential water access points and contains the comments from the
public forums held in January , and the suggested or potential uses of
the listed sites as researched and discussed by the WASC,
Benchmark, Inc. and the Town Staff.
Any decisions to expand or contract existing or potential waterfront
access points within the limits of Morehead City will ultimately be
made by Morehead City's five Town Council members.
The Study Area. The study area covered by this Plan included the
entire Town limits and a larger area immediately outside of Town
where public access points exist or have potential adjacent to the
surface waters ofBogue Sound, Newport River, Calico Creek and their
tributaries. A water access site could be a place to fish or a place to
simply look at the water. Boat ramps, pedestrian, biking, or vehicle
access may be appropriate for some sites and not others.
Findings: Out of 69 investigated studied sites, the groups 64 existing
and potential public waterfront access sites into these five basic types
as defined bi- the Coastal Resources Commission and modified by the
Waterfront Access Steering Committee.
45 - Local Access Sites
10 - Neighborhood Access Sites
3 - Community Access Sites
1 - Regional Access Site
7 - Urban Waterfront Redevelopment Project
The WASC and Planning Team devoted a great deal of attention to
how best to clean-up and improve Local and Neighborhood Access
Sites at street ends. Emphasis was placed on improvements that would
minimize impacts on surrounding neighbors while recognizing that
some water access activities are appropriate for these sites. The Map
of Potential Waterfront Access sites presented on the reverse of this
page shows the types and locations of existing and proposed access
sites.
What would access improvements look like? Illustrative site plans
for three types of access are recommended in the Plan —Local,
Neighborhood and Community.
What uses or improvements for each type of access are
recommended? Following are the definitions the WASC and
Planning Team are recommending in consideration of each type of
water access keyed to the Map. Asterisks (')
Local Access Sites: CHARACTERIZE) BY:
• Public access points (generally at street ends)
• Minimum or no facilities
• No directional signage leading to the site
• Principal rice by pedestrians who reside within a
few hundred yards of the site
• No parking areas provided *
• Limited use hours where necessary ,
• Hand launching only of small boats and water craft.
No ramps provided •
• No handicapped access provided
• Two (2) Live Oak or other species of street trees'
• Shoreline protection (if needed)'
• Lawn, planted with St. Augustine grass up to the
marsh or erosion zone instead of pavement to
shoreline ,
• Bollards or distinctive markers (spaced 8 feet
apart), with waterfront access symbol *
• Markers to demarcate between private and public
land spaces *
*..... oy wn.e.....�. a
J � �
buffering, day use, name study or similar ptvposesi
' t 25-80 parking spaces
" .. Crossover or path
«a — Pia '
Four (4) foot wide boardwalk for shore access
ew m —
• Litter receptacles
Public access signs
Shoreline protection (if needed)
• Restrooms, where feasible ,
® Foot showers, where feasible'
• Small boat launching and hand launching' '
tans .w':,a
Multi -Regional Access Sites CHARACTERIZED BY:
A site larger dutn community access but ,uwller
„ ^»sR' than state parks
co
' • Two acres of open space, where possible, in,
m [_ addition to all required setbacks provided for
buffering, day use, aature sandy or similar purposes'
80-100 parking spaces
Various facilities (pier, boat ramp, etc.)
...
Restrooms
Indoor showers and changing rooms '
+ = oq Concessionstand(s)
w
'1 t Urban Waterfront CHAPACTFRIZtm BY:
Active commercial, water -dependent and non t
%ater-dependent uses
Promenade or boardwalk for pedestrians *
Boat slips and bulkheads '
Located in the Downtown' '
Neighborhood Access Sites CHARACTERIZED BY: Non motorized boat rentals'
Principal use by individuals near the site or within Commercial boat taxi services'
the immediate subdivision Floating docks for day and overnight boat dockage
• Typically 40-60 feet of width (street right-of-way) • Off street parking • '
• No directional signage leading to the site *
• Limited use hours where necessary Want More Information?
• Handicapped access provided , The Morehead City Planning Department can be contacted at 919-726- 1
• Five (5) standard parking spaces & One (1) 5243 for more information.
handicapped space
Two (2) Live Oak or other species of street trees
Lawn, planted with St. Augustine grass up to the '
marsh or erosion zone "
Four foot wide boardwalk for shore access'
• Litter receptacles
Bike rack '
• Limited lighting `
• Shoreline protection (if needed)
• Bollards or distinctive markers with 'waterfront
access' symbol * '
Markers to demarcate between private and public
land spaces *
• Hand launching only of boats and small water craft
No ramps provided * '
Community Access Sites CHARACTERIZED BY:
Service of die public throughout the community, '
including day visitors
Where possible, usually- has one-half acre open
space in addition to all required setback areas for
t

eol-&O, JZOW ~
\PUBLIC .�j�}Gf!
fArtl .7P
1pGff j + <, 7REL:
- rri r--w- I VA7e,
V.
7/; s' N_ C.e3toPT o )
_ m m
t'lCf'!'GI�NG4Y
• oL [Af�G� iza vY�—
NOM AWI/5T . 4-OCAT/o!V 4
97OUA* Zb3 MALLOW ,oR/vE wA,1
Ad:f .
4:qpr1ONA1-
Local Access Improvements 22.3
Morehead City Waterfront Access Plan
1" = 20'-0.,

`ptuPx� G
ffEI7GG
(OpTioyftti
eO'.-w AOw
42 1-M/N
1
Z
r
' HG ACGf`� 7V _
I l T!G -UP IMC �i/4LL
f ,P�oA7r7•
�- P"A/va72.
�.• fc0W .
NOTE ,PARK/NG S FAVCv ARE4
WILL ACU&S- ' M RLLOW ,Aj21VB -
WAY CZeP�
- pPTlOOVAZ.: 70 8e A57rAMIMeDASNeZ,0Ev
Neighborhood Access Improvements 22.4
Morehead City Waterfront Access Plan
1" = 20,-0"

m = IMI m m
�V)
N
tJ
C -A
CO
R MMP M
On
G
SALL Boq,T
¢uNcH
io�xlo'3P.�ci3 'y
-46PIV4Ar
Amao,8110
?MKIMri
NCHMAR/
fNCORAOfddTEO
Local Cowmment remi seb
Pd..l.g,cmmmuiry eov.MPm..t
Rod wounow •n.t
IONSTON, NC
Scale: 1 " = GO,
Morehead City
Prefinthiary COnUnunity Access
N. IIth Street
op
vF cAK
4M e 7IPq�l R /'Yl.:..—
roiPow �C 4/4Nr
�► » x1i6�N
n
The Pr Mdw ofiMe doe.ment.m ft a d, M Pert tMwgh•
9. ProddedbPthe Nora CuoUm CowW Memtemem Prog.
thm gbfmdePraidedb9Mo Cmrk1ZoneM.Pe Add1911.
.eemwde4. V le kN.d I b� W OnkodO h nodd. dl
Brower Memtemmt,Nenoml OaoNc and Almmphmk Admlektrelloa

m m
tu
r
Y7
L /0#7-
t,
41W
Bol zmz
oo• �AR/4/NG
Ero .SRge.E3) .«.
51K4AUNCHT
LUJLU
N T�G'lS
Os
ITM psepamilw of lMt docvmem mt llmmed. in P24 lhrweb a ps provided by M.Nerib Cerolloa
Ceased Manapment Psapam, Wrwpb foods provided by the Cambl Eon, Mampmeol Ad of I972, es
maeaded, which Is edmiMdersd by the Office ofOoean and Cased Resources Mampmm4 National Oteank
and Ammpherk Admlolrtremo.
SHEPARO mrm�S-r/l,e&-r
�'a1IMl�Uq�,
w''��%4idVT
MSNF �R
LarM's
CAN
NCH AR
MtCORPOAd E
Loml Goremment remioea
P6ulay. ma. esanlvpmot
aa4 Ya.ayoeat
IONSTON, No
Scale: 1 n = 1 U
Morehead City
Frelisniliary CommuYuty Access
So loth Street & So filth Street

Appendices
Waterfront Access Plan
TOWN OF MOREHEAD CITY, NC
22.7

Appendix A. Planning Process
The preparation of the Waterfront Access Plan involved five phases. The process beganwith
Phase One - Project Initiation Phase which involved the scheduling of initial meetings, the
identification of key waterfront access issues, and the formulation of methods for data collection.
Phase Two - Analysis of Needs, Issues, and Assets Phase involved the examination and
interpretation of data collected. Phase Three - Initial Public Forum Phase involved the
administration of public forums for citizen participation and comment. Phase Four - Draft Plan
Preparation Phase summarized the findings of the public forum into a report and led to the creation
of the draft Waterfront Access Plan The final phase or Phase Five - Finalization of Plan Phase
concluded the process by receiving any additional public comment before final presentation of the
Plan to the WASC for endorsement.
Phase One - Project InWation and Inventory
The Town Council of Morehead City appointed a WASC in the fall of 1997 as the body
responsible for overseeing the preparation of the Waterfront Access Plan. Committee members
had an active role in helping to identify issues and developing the goals and recommendations in
the Plan. Volunteer members who served on this committee included the following:
► Councilman John Nelson, Committee Chairman
► Mayor W.C. "Bill" Horton
► Councilman Demus Thompson
► Ms. Carol Wray
► Ms. Richella Walker
► Mr. Dick Gambill
► Mr. Bud Doughton
► Ms. Evelyn Olschner
► Mr. Ted Odell
► Mr. Doug Pearce
Initially, the process involved a meeting with the Morehead City Planning Staff and the chairman of
the WASC to identify key community issues concerning waterfront access, likes and concerns
about existing and potential access areas, and vision for future improvements. The WASC was
taken through a series of exercises that identified problems and established additional concerns of
the community. These exercises also attempted to determine what strategies might address those
concerns identified. Through discussion, a list of general objectives was achieved.
A survey instrument was prepared to allow for field reconnaissance and the inventory of existing
and potential access sites. There were sixty-nine (69) sites identified in the inventory and each was
assigned a site identification number (SIN). The survey was designed to identify and validate
existing access sites and the usage of those sites for various recreational opportunities. In addition
to the identification of issues and the creation of the field inventory, members of the WASC were
Morehead city wsur&od Acoesa Plan 23

charged with the responsibility of providing photographs of existing and potential access sites they
felt were important to consider within the planning area. This helped to further articulate
community issues and concerns, as well as, provide a basis from which to draw a vision for future
improvements. Table 3 shows the location and corresponding site identification numbers.
Table 3
Complete Inventory of Existing & Potential Waterfront Access Sites
Morehead City, NC
site
m #
Location of Site by Property
Reference or Street Name
Site
ID #
notation of site by Property
Reference or Street Name
Site
M #
r ocadoo of site by Property
Refers or Street Name
1
S. 3"t Street
25
S. 2" Street
48
N. 25m Street
2
S. 4a Street
26
S. 30° Street
49
N. 2V Street
3
S. 60' Street
27
Sunset Drive
50
N. 22nd Street
4
S. 7'" Street
28
S. 32at Street
51
N. 17'" Street
5
S. go Street
29
S. 33N Street
52
N. 16'" Street
6
S. 9" Street
30
S. 341° Street
53
N. 15° Street
7
S. IOn Street
31
NC Wildlife Access Site
54
N. W Street
9
S. 11° Street
32
Wallace Road
55
N. 13a Street
9
5.121 Street
33
NC Marine Fisheries Site
56
N. 12a Street
10
S. 13'" Street
34
Banks Street
57
N. 11'" Street
I
S. W Street
35
Lockhart Street
58
N. 10'" Street
12
S. 15'" Street
36
Oaksmith Boulevard
59
N. 9'" Street
13
S. W Street
37
Savannah Avenue
60
N. So Street
14
S. it Street
38
Lake Avenue
61
N. r Street
15
S.18° Stint
39
S. Larkin Street
62
N. & Street
16
S. 10 Street
40
S. Rochelle Drive
63
N. 5n Street
18
S. 21, Street
41
Virginia Avenue
64
j N. 2& St. (S of Calico Dr.)
19
S. 22"'t Street
42
Florida Avenue
65
N. I Sa St (S of Calico Dr.)
20
S. 24'" Street
43
Miami Avenue
66
N. 19' St. (N of Calico Dr.)
21
S. 25m Street
44
Salem Avenue
67
County Club Road (end)
22
S. 266 Street
45
Riverside Avenue
68
N. 20'" St. (Mayberry Loop)
23
S. 27'" Street
46
Ba}view Avenue
69
Alley (N. Of Shackleford)
24
S. 29'° Street
47
N. 241 Street
70
S. 20'" Street
Morehead City Watafiont Access Pin 24

Finally, Phase One involved the preparation, approval and distribution of a strategy for citizen
participation and input in the overall public process. The Guidelines to the Coastal Area
Management Act for the State of North Carolina requires that a variety of techniques be used for
educating and involving the public in the process of the plan's development. In meeting this
requirement, the Town was responsible for involving and educating the residents of the community
in the development of a Citizen Participation Strategy (see Appendix B). The strategy involved the
following steps and provided information to the public while encouraging citizen involvement:
1. Designation of an Advisory Committee
2. Initial Key Officials Information Meeting
3. Administration of Public Information Forum
4. Designation of Periodic WASC Meeting
S. Conduct of Public Information Forum & Hearing on Preliminary Draft Plan
6. Provision of Additional Means of Soliciting Public Involvement, including public
notices in local news media, distribution of information by committee members,
direct correspondence to absentee property owners and others requesting
information
Phase Two - Analysis of Needs, Issues, and Assets
This phase of the project involved further analysis of the key access issues, concerns and vision
identified by the WASC. Using the field data collected, potential water access sites were firrther
discussed in terms of the availability of land and rights -of -way for public access. The impact of
transportation facilities and services on waterfront access were also discussed, as well as, an
examination made of environmental and cultural assets.
Phase Three - Initial Public Forum & Establishment of Goals
Phase Three included the preparation and administration of the first public forum to receive public
comment on waterfront access issues and concerns. Preparation involved the organization of
photographs provided by WASC members of existing and potential access site within the Planning
Area. A photo inventory, along with a list of the sites photographed and a summary of this phase
of the project were displayed at the forum for public view.
The Public Forum was conducted with the primary focus of further articulating the purpose and
goals of the Waterfront Access Plan. The general public was invited to attend the forum in order
to discuss water access issues, goals, and objectives and provide comment. Attendees were
organized into groups for better discussion in one of two sessions. As a result, each group
identified its perception of the water access issues affecting the community and identified those
sites (by street and/or by land) on the town map most appropriate or inappropriate for recreational
activities and opportunities. The information gathered from each group was consolidated and
summarized into the primary issues and concerns identified by the workshop participants. This
information, contained in Appendix C, was used to formulate policies and recommendations for the
Morehead City Wdafroot Ac Plan 25

Waterfront Access Plan.
Goals
After having held a public forum where public input was received, a draft set of goals was
' presented for review and discussion at the fourth WASC meeting. The committee adopted the
following goals to frame the desired outcomes of the Waterfront Access Plan.
1. To investigate and prepare a Waterfront Access Plan and Map for the Town of Morehead City's shoreline,
including the planning jurisdiction or planning area;
2. To develop the Plan with direct community participation and consensus building;
3. To prepare a Plan that is based on CAMA guidelines for waterfront access types,
4. To identify appropriate access within existing neighborhoods, while maintaining the integrity of the
neighborhood;
5. To prepare a Waterfront Access Plan that recognizes the need for and accommodates appropriate waterfront
development in sensitive environmental areas,
6. To identify appropriate community level access;
7. To maintain the public health, safety, and general welfare.
Phase Four - Draft Plan Preparation
' Using the information gathered from community participants who attended the Public Forum, a
draft report was produced to further identify and target specific water access issues and to prepare
a statement of goals and objectives for future water access strategies. Using the established goals
and objectives identified by the community, information gathered from staff representing various
town offices, information provided by the WASC, and published plans and regulations, a draft
Waterfront Access Plan was created. Along with the draft plan, a preliminary map of the town and
' its Extra -Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) was developed to show existing and potential classifications
of existing and potential water access locations and to illustrate sites.
Phase Five - Finalizing the Plan
The final phase of the project involved the final steps in the completion of the Waterfront Access
Plan document. This final phase involved the consolidation of comments to be considered before
the creation of the final plan document, from the staff of various town officials and the WASC.
Also considered were the comments from the general public at the Second Public Forum
conducted, at which the Draft Waterfront Access Plan and Map were presented for public review.
The last steps of this phase consisted of the final revision and finalization of the Plan and Map and
the presentation of the Plan and Map to the WASC for endorsement.
M=hW City Wda&oot A*=Plan 26

' Appendix B.
Copy of the Citizen Participation Strategy Resolution & List
of WASC meetings held
Citizen Participation Strategy
for the Development of the Waterfront Access ?Ian and Map
The Guidelines to the Coastal Area Management Act for the State of North Carolina requires that the
consideration of a public plan include a variety of techniques for educating and involving the public in the process
of the plan's development. The town is responsible for involving and educating those who reside within the
community in the development of an official Plan. The town desires that all people have a full and adequate
opportunity to participate in the public process. It is the town's intent to have a continuous citizen participation
process that achieves these purposes.
The following steps will be taken to provide information to the public and to encourage citizen involvement:
Designation of an Advisory Committee
The Town Council of Morehead City appointed a Waterfront Access Steering Committee (WASC) in the fall of
1997 as the body responsible for overseeing the preparation of the Waterfront Access Plan and Map. The WASC
is composed of the following members:
1.
Mr. John Nelson, Chairman
2.
Dr. W.C. "Bill" Horton, Mayor
3.
Mr. Demus Thompson, Councilman
4.
Ms. Carol Wray
5.
Ms. Richella Walker
6.
Mr. Dick Gambill
7.
Mr. Bud Doughton
8.
Ms. Evelyn Olschner
9.
Mr. Ted Odell
10.
Mr. Doug Pearce
The WASC will serve in a review and advisory capacity to the Toga Council, the Planning Board and the town's
Planning Consultant, Benchmark, Inc. The WASC will meet on a periodic basis with the Planning Consultant to
review draft materials prepared by the Planning Consultant Team, assist the Planning Consultant Team with
defining key waterfront access concerns, and provide general input. The WASC will keep the Town Council
appraised of its activities and progress through regular oral and/or written reports to the Town Council.
2. Initial Key Officials Information Meeting
The first meeting of the WASC and key officials will be held on December 16, 1997. This meeting will serve as a
venue for orienting the WASC on its role and the nature and scope of the Waterfront Access Plan and Map. Also,
the purpose of this meeting will be to develop a statement to clearly articulate the purpose of the planning project
to the public; prepare and approve a Citizen Participation Plan; retrieve the Steering Committee's photo inventory
assignment, requested by the Planning Consultant Team; learn basic information from the Town Attorney about
the legal aspects of public access. The WASC will be briefed on the "Charrede" style workshop process.
Madhad Cky Wnc9unt Ao= Plan 27

3. Public Informoticn Forum
A public forum of the WASC, using a `charrette" style process, will be held from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. and from 7 p.m.
to 8:30 p.m., on January 29, 1998 as an educational opportunity to inform the general public of the purpose of the
CAMA Waterfront Access Plan and Map; explain the process for creating the plan; identify and discuss water
access issues, goals, and objectives and secure input from Forum attendees; and present project milestones and
delineate a schedule for creating the flan. A charrette" may be defined as a process of direct citizen participation
in community design issues aimed at developing community held issues, deriving community directed solutions,
and creating consensus among the participants in the process. The purpose of conducting the charrette is to solicit
ideas from affected citizens, who could potentially propose unexpected solutions and warn against unforseen
problems. The use of the charrette will encourage all segments of the community to participate in the planning
process and contribute in a meaningful and controlled way, with an ability to influence the outcome of the project.
4. Periodic Waterfront Access Steering Committee Meetings
The WASC will meet at strategic points throughout the water&om access planning process from December 1997 to
May 1998, to provide general input into the plan development and to review materials prepared by the Planning
Consultant Team. Meetings will be held to identify goals and objectives; identify waterfront access issues; review
a summary report on existing conditions, ronctre;nts to waterfront access and development, and estimated demands
on waterfront land and community facilities and services; review draft policy statements; and review a draft of the
entire Waterfiom Access Plan and Map. Notices will be published in a newspaper of general circulation, prior to
each meeting. An opportunity for public comment and input will be afforded at each meeting.
Public Information Forum and Hearing on the Preliminary Draft Plan
Following the completion of a preliminary draft Waterfront Access Plan and Map, a second public information
meeting will be held jointly by the Town Council and the WASC in April of 1998. The purpose of this meeting
will be to review the draft Plan, particularly the policy statements that have been developed and the proposed
waterfront land for public access. The meeting will be advertised as a public hearing and proNide another
opportunity for public involvement. Prior to adoption of the updated Plan, copies of the preliminary draft
Waterfront Access Plan and Map will be available at the Planning Department. The Town Council will consider
action on adoption of the Plan after receiving public comments on the preliminary Plan and recommendations by
the WASC.
Additionol keans of Soliciting Public Involvement,
In addition to the meetings outlined above, Morehead City will use the following means to increase public
involvement and information:
♦ Public notices will be given prior to the public information meetings and the public hearing. These
should lead to newspaper articles and public service announcements.
♦ The public hearing will be advertised by newspaper notice at least 10 days prior to the date of the public
hearing which is anticipated to be held in April of 1998.
♦ Notices of the public hearing or meetings will be posted at City Hall.
♦ Copies of the final draft Waterfront Access Plan and Map will be available for review at City Hall and the
Public Library.
♦ A copy of this Citizen Participation Plan will be available at City Hall.
' Mara and ray watafimt Awes Plan
28

The summary reports will be available for public review at City M. Copies of the reports will also be available to
the media
RECOMMENDED the _ day of 1097, with Waterfront Access Steering Committee Members
and voting Tor:
voting against; and absent.
John F. Nelson
Chairman
ADOPTED the _ day of 1998, with Town Council Members
and voting for:
voting against; and absent.
ATTEST: TOWN OF MOREHEAD C! INSERT C':TY SEAL HERE
Joanne T. Spencer W.C. Horton
City Clerk Mayor
Morehead eay Wdafram Acmes Plan 29

1
11
1
1
1
I1
1
Summary of meetings held in preparation of the Plan
-11 December 8, 1997
-42 December 16, 1997
-43 January 13, 1998
-44 January 29, 1998
45 March 12, 1998
-16 April 8, 1998
-47
April 23, 1998
48
May 8, 1998
-49
May 18, 1998,
410 June 9, 1998
-411 June 23, 1998
-412 June 29, 1998
Momhead City Waterf+ont Ac . Plan
Scoping meeting to review timetable, roles, and orientation of the
Waterfront Access Committee at their first scheduled meeting set
for December 16. Present: Mr. John Nelson, Chair, WASC, Randy
Martin, City Manager, Linda Staab, Planning Director, Dave
McCabe, PW Director, Louise Hughes, Recreation Director,
Commissioner Demus Thompson, member, Mayor Horton,
member, Nelson Taylor, Attorney, Kathy Vinson, District Planner,
DCM, Bob Clark and Earnest McDonald for Benchmark, Inc.
Orientation... to the committee's responsibilities; to the process and
scope of the Waterfront Access Plan; to introduce the consulting
planning team, to review the project schedule, and to consider
recommending a Citizen Participation Stategy for this project to the
Town Council
Continued orientation of members to the committee's
responsibilities; project schedule, heard a progress report on the
inventory, discussed issues for consideration in the plan, and
preparations for the January 29th public workshops
Two evening public forums/charette workshops held at the Crystal
Coast Civic Center
Third meeting of the WASC discussed & defined the Plan's goals,
reviewed began consolidating publicly listed issues, and discussed
generalized locations for potential classes of public access. Set a
calendar for first draft plan review and future meetings.
Reviewed issues coming to initial consensus on what ideas to
pursue and how to address local and neighborhood types of access
Review 1" draft plan
Review & changes to recommended to revised draft plan
Review 2"d revised draft plan, made further changes and Oked for
public forum/hearing set for June 9
Meeting to make arrangements for the public forum/hearing
Public Forum/hearing at Crystal Coast Civic Center hosted by
WASC with Town Council in attendance
WASC concluded its study.
30

I
' Appendix C.
Summary of Public Comments listed during the January 29,
1998 and June 23, 1998 Public Forums
Public Workshops
Summary of Comments
The following sections are comments that were received from participants at the January 29, 1998
' Waterfront Access Plan public workshops. Comments are arranged according to the major issues
identified by the workshop participants. This information will be used by the Planning Team in
formulating policies for the Waterfront Access Plan. The following comments are listed in no
particular order of importance.
Section 1 Public Parking Issues
1.
Parking problems on residential streets
2.
3.
Provide no parking on 12' St
Don't block driveways or residential on -street
parking
4.
Redesign parking at visitor area
5.
Issue car decals to control parking problems
'
6.
Locate off-street parking for S. 22' St & other areas (120' - 166' Streets) where non -local
parking abounds during the summer season
7.
Insufficient parking at 28'", 12", 16' and 17"
'
8.
Limit the duration of parking at certain locations
9.
Provide parking at public docks
10.
Need way to identify vehicles/boat trailers of residents
'
11.
Use S 10' and S 11' Streets to provide parking
'
Section
2 Public Access Signs
1.
Focus on good pedestrian access and not just signage (don't erect public access signs)
t
2.
Mark alleys with public access signs
3.
Don't identify alleys for public access
'
4.
Use small signs on benches, trash cans to identify public access sites
Section
3 Street End Issues
' 1. S. 24' St (old bridge end) parking problem
2. 20" St bridge is too small & dangerous for public access and associated activities
t 3. 32nd & Sunset property dispute private/vacant but used by public
4. Boat club interested in street ends
S. Sell street ends to adjacent property owners and use revenue to buy sites elsewhere
' 6. S. 6" St end parking problems limit vehicular access
' Morehead City WakrGont Axess Ptah
31

I
' 7. Close Evans St to public access
8. Improve alternative access to 16g' and 17"' Streets
9. Concern for noise, trash, encroachment and crime on 20`s St & Adjacent Alleys
10. Street ends need to be better lighted at night
11. Provide no more public access on 16'6 St
12. Instead of increasing access at street ends, clean them & make them safe
13. Designate a test area and study it for 2 years for effect on residential neighborhood
14. More access will mean more teen and gang hangouts
' 15. Use south end of Raleigh Ave that is private (for public access)
Section 4 Public Access Policing
■ 1. Need way to identify & police area "local vs. multi -regional"
2. Leave streets ends alone, clean them up & police/limit access by limiting parking
' 3. Consider physical barriers to keep vehicles from intruding
4. Police & prevent encroachment on private property
5. Tax the town residents to pay security personnel to police access areas
' 6. Provide full-time police patrol for vandalism
'
Section 5 Community Access Issues
1.
Don't provide recreation facilities for out-of-town visitors; if provided, don't make it easy
2.
Distribute points so all area is overwhelmed
3.
All piers block access to beach, built past high water mark
4.
City needs to maintain public access sites
'
5.
6.
Match boat activities with suitable/compatible locations
Examine S. 10°i St for access potential & convert it into a park
7.
Acquire properties on Shepard Street for pubic use
'
S.
Don't improve street ends (will lead to further public encroachment, nudity, romantic
activity, noise, garbage & reduce property values)
9.
Use Recreation Department properties to provide pubic access on Calico Creek
'
10.
Provide public access on banks of the Bogue Sound
11.
Don't condemn vacant lots on waterfront or in residential areas to provide public access
12.
Use Civic Center beach area to provide public access
'
13.
Create one or two regional access points with good facilities including parking, instead of
providing neighborhood mini -parks
14.
Upgrade existing access, instead of focusing on new access
15.
Use Carteret Community for public access, swimming, boat launch
16.
Allow 26°i St to remain open for public access
'
17.
18.
Provide waterfront access to the handicapped
Neighborhoods and the City should form partnership and maintain access points
19.
Clean up Calico Creek and improve access
'
20.
Use Newport River to provide access
' rlorehead City Waterfront Access Plan
32

'
21.
Provide public access to pubic housing areas
22.
Use haystacks area to provide access
23.
Provide access on Radio Island
'
24.
Dredge Calico Creek
25.
Where will initial money & maintenance revenue come from
26.
27.
Children and pets impact neighborhood access
Provide access at Crab Point
28.
Provide access near Hampton Inn
'
29.
Additional access may threaten growth in City
30.
Make public access in residential neighborhoods casual visitation rather than public
gathering
31.
Provide access points on small lots to prevent large crowds of people
Section 6 Education Issues
' 1. Provide a definition of public access and educate the public as to what their rights and
responsibilities are
' Section 7 Boat Access Issues
'
1.
Provide boat launch on back creek
2.
Provide sailboat launch & building access with 1934 Morehead Boat Club dock
3.
4.
Need for small boat launch site on Calico Creek
Add boat ramps to existing city park
5.
Provide second boat ramp (a lot in residential district or at CCC) for weekend use
6.
Provide no wake zones for small boat launching
'
7.
Provide boat access behind old Senior Center
S.
Provide boat ramp at motel on Calico Creek
9.
Limit boat access to a defined distance from residential areas
10.
Open area in Calico Creek Bay for shallow boating
11.
Provide a boat ramp on Evans St
'
12.
Build docks strong enough to weather storms
Section
8 Pedestrian Access Issues
1.
Provide boardwalk along Calico Creek
2
Provide a walkway and observation area on Backshore area (5'" - 10°i Streets)
3.
Use docks on water block for lateral improvements for pedestrian access
4.
Provide bike/pedestrian walkway from boat ramp through to college
Morehead City Waterfront Aco Plan 33

' Section 9 Recreation Issues
1. Pubic safety/swimming desired at 16'h - 24'h Streets
' 2. Provide scenic views along Calico Creek
3. Provide nature trails
' 4. Provide more wildlife access areas
5. Provide areas for birdwatching and bicycle paths
6. Separate swimming areas from public docks
tSection 10 Facility Improvement Issues
' 1. Provide trash receptacles on 131h St & 18di Streets
2. Provide playground on S. 26' St
3. Convert Mitchell village area into public park
' 4. Convert Sugarload Island into a public park
5. Build YMCA/YWCA to include swimming
6. Designate Mitchell Village to be a city park, rather than a local park
' 7. Provide small piers for fishing on Calico Creek and Bogue Sound, possible at old bridge
' The following sections are comments that were received from participants at the June 23, 1998
Waterfront Access Plan public forum. Again, comments are arranged according to the major
issues identified by the persons who spoke at the forum. The following comments are listed in no
' particular order of importance.
Major Issues Identified by Speakers at the June 1998 Public Forum
Section 1 Public Parking Issues
Consider traffic and associated parking for their impact on residential neighborhoods.
Section 2 Street End Issues
I
1 2.
Do not overadvertise the use of street ends to make them inviting to person who live
outside of the Town.
Leave street ends as they are, becasue they are already being put to maximum use and/or
overutilized.
Do not install street end improvements, such as lights, trash cans and bollards. Such
improvements would be detrimental to residential property values.
' Section 3 Public Access Policing
1. Do not clean up the street ends to invite additional illegal activity for policing, including
drug activity, loitering, trash and alcohol consumption.
Morehead City Walfffma Accm Plan

11
' 2. Provide lifeguards and police to ensure safety and the proper use of public access
improvements.
3. Do not make proposed public access areas near residential neighborhoods inviting to
' crime.
4. Ensure policing to delineate between private and public property and prevent the public
' from straying away from the right-of-way.
Section 4 Community Access Issues
' 1. Do not open up street ends to increase problems in residential areas, include increased
traffic congestion and use by out of town visitors.
' 2. Consider residential neighborhoods in the community and the effect of proposed public
access before adopting a plan.
3. Use the Waterfront Access Plan as a reference guide for the continued development of
' pulbic access ideas that work for the whole community.
4. Consider using tax dollars for issues more important that the proposed public access
improvements, which would cost millions of dollars to implement.
' 5. Do not adopt the Plan and clear the way for everything no one wants (e.g. trash, traffic,
trouble for the residents of the Town).
' Section 5 Education.Issues
' 1. Develop small area plans for public input, while continuing the process of defining public
access.
Section 6 Boat Access Issues
1. Do not provide any access from 9 h Street to 16d' Street on Calico Creek, including boat
' ramps.
2. Concentrate less on improvements with regional implications, such as boat ramps and
associated site improvements.
1 Section 7 Pedestrian Access Issues
' 1. Do not endanger or lessen pedestrian traffic (e.g. walkers, skaters, joggers and baby
strollers) by increasing traffic through the installation of improvements to street ends.
' Section 8 Recreation Issues
t 1. Provide a public swimming facility near or around the Recreation Center.
2. Do not provide public access areas for swimming near the street ends of S. 21' Street and
S. 22nd Street, because of the danger associated with rocks and the use of jet skiis.
' 3. Consider recreational activities as second nature to the fundamental issue of pollution
' Morehead City Waterfront Access Plan
35

I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1 .
1 .
1
1
1
1
1
Section 9 Recreation Issues
1. Public safety/swimming desired at 16th - 24th Streets
2. Provide scenic veiws along Calico Creek
3. Provide nature trails
4. Provide more wildlife access areas
5. Provide areas for birdwatching and bicycle paths
6. Separate swimming areas from public docks
Section 10 Facility Improvement Issues
1. Provide trash receptacles on 13th St & 18th Streets
2. Provide playground on S. 26th Street
3. Convert Mitchell Village area into public park
4. Convert Sugarloaf Island into a public park
5. Build YMCA/YWCA to include swimming
6. Designate Mitchell Village to be a City Park, rather than a local park
7. Provide small piers for fishing on Calico Creek and Bogue Sound, possible at old
bridge.
The following sections are comments that were received from participants at the June 23,
1998 Waterfront Access Plan public forum.
TOWN COUNCIL
MORC•HEAD CITY, N.C.
The Honorable Board of the Town of Morehead City met in joint session with the
Morehead City Waterfront Access Study Committee on Tuesday, June 23, 1998, at 7:00 p.m., in
the Crystal Coast Civic Center in Morehead City, NC. The purpose of the joint session was to
review the final draft of the Water Access Plan prepared by the Water Access Study Committee
and take public comments. Those in attendance were:
MAYOR: Dr. W. C. 'Bill' Horton (arriving late)
COMMISSIONERS: John F. Nelson
Paul W. Cordova
Demus Thompson
Jerry A. Jones, Jr.
Floyd Chadwick
CITY MANAGER: R. Randolph 'Randy' Martin
DEPUTY CITY CLERK: M. Joyce Veltman
ABSENT: Joanne T. Spencer, City Clerk
WATER ACCESS COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Bud Doughton, Evelyn Olschner,
Carolyn Wray, Ted Odell, Richard Gambill and Richella
Walker
OTHERS: Bob Clark, Cynthia Rice and Ernest McDonald of
Benchmark, Inc.; City Staff working with the Water Access Study Committee were Planning
Director Linda Staab, Public Works Director David McCabe and Recreation Director Louise
Hughes. There were approximately 100 interested citizens present.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Pro Tcm Floyd Chadwick. The invocation
was given by Commissioner Thompson. Mayor Pro Tern Chadwick turned the mating over to
Commissioner John Nelson, Chairman of the Water Access Study Committee. Everyone present
was welcomed and Commissioner Nelson introduced the Water Access Committee Members and
Councilmen present.
Commissioner Nelson advised the study was done in conjunction with Benchmark, Inc., a
private business specializing in helping local governments with plans and coordinating studies.
Benchmark, Inc., has offices in Kannapolis and Kinston, NC. Bob Clark serving as Planner In.
Charge, was introduced to present an overview and introduce his staff which has worked on the
document for the past 8.9 months.
M.

I
1
1
Bob Clark introduced Ernest McDonald, also of Benchmark. Inc., and Cynthia Rice,
Landscape Architect and Planner of Raleigh, NC. Mr. Clark conducted a slide show which gave
a brief synopsis of the study including the characterization of each proposed access type.
Following the slide show Commissioner Nelson requested each speaker be brief and not
repeat comments already made and to limit comments to three minutes.
Curtis Oder, Jr., 1412 Avery Street, vice-president of Concerned Citizens vs. Crime
iCCvCi, recognized president Clarence Monroe, explained the CCvC represents an area between
9th -16th Streets and from Bridges Street to Calico Creek. This group, established in 1991 under
Rev. Alonzo White, was originally formed to fight crime and drugs in the neighborhood. Mr.
Oden voiced the group's opposition to any accesses from 9th Street to 16th Street on Calico
Creek including boat ramps. The CCvC believed cleaning up the street ends would invite all
kinds of activity including drug activity, loitering, trash, and alcohol consumption. He stated the
CCvC had no problem with people coming to view the scenery but opening the street ends to
access would increase problems in this residential area. Some of the proposals for access in the
draft are nice, such as what was done on 9th Street on the Sound but the Committee should
consider the residences at the Proposed sites and how they would be affected. Mr. Oden added
he was in favor of a public swimming facility, preferably around the Recreation Center.
Dempsey Hodges, 2107 Shepard Street, voiced his concern of the street ends of S. 21st
Street, 22nd Street, the old bridge and the new bridge, bein& dangerous places to swim on
outgoing tidy because there is a drop off very close to the shoreline making swimming dangerous
because of water flow; Also, there is boat/jet ski traffic that endangers the safety of swimmers
and children on S. 22nd Street. The end of S. 21st Street would be out of the question for
recreational use because it is about 200' out to chest high water and there are oyster shells and
rocks covering the sound floor. Mr. Hodges added that if the street ends are used for recreational
swimming with 'park -like' atmosphere the number of people and parking spaces should be
limited and strictly enforced and it would be necessary for lifeguards to be on duty when the
facilities are open. Mr. Hodges stated local residents are welcome to swim in safe areas in the
neighborhood but they do not want to make these areas parks or advertise the areas for out of
town people.
Henry Nicholson, 2813 Evans Street, voiced his concern that giving strangers a reason to
be in an area causes problems and the problems will not stop at the public area borders but will
spread to private properties nearby. Waterfront properties are particularly vulnerable because of
easy access via the beach and the water. He requested that crime not be invited into
neighborhoods.
William Farley, 1601 Shackleford Street, voiced his family's appreciation to the work of
the committee in draftin4 the plan. He stated his family welcomes the process of discovering
what is going on and trying to define what needs to be accomplished for the community. Small
area planning is intensive work and the process needs to continue. He voiced his disappointment
in the consultants that worked with the Committee and commented rather than try to assist and
guide they attempted to direct and influence the Committee. He contended that the Parks and
Recreation Department had meddled in the plan which kept the focus on 12th and 16th Streets.
He commence that the Committee itself had wanted all street ends treated as local access points
and had not liked the facilities overview but it was included in the draft. He requested this
exhibit be omitted. He voiced his concern that staff will follow through with the ideas of the
document as being the Committee's wishes which, Mr. Farley felt, was incorrect. Mr. Farley
voiced his concern that a pamphlet will be published to outside visitors earmarking 16th Street as
the public facility for 'out of towners' to come and spend the day which, he felt, would have a
detrimental effect on the community and negatively impact property values. He requested that.
the water access plan be used as a reference guide only, that the committee continue and develop
some ideas that work for the whole community, to put forth small area plans for public input and
continue the process of defining access. He added he believed several small area plans could be
developed that would achieve what waterfront homeowner's need for security and safety and what
users requite.
Mason Williams, 404 South 13th Street, stated he believed the street ends in his area are
being used by the community at its maximum benefit as it is. He stated he believed the street
ends were in good shape as they are. He pointed out that the Shevans Park development was
thought to be a good idea for community development but now bus loads of children are brought
from other counties to use the facility which is great to them but is not of much benefit to
Morehead City. If street ends are opened up and publicized as a place to go, even though it may
be done for the locals, it may begin to be used by these same school children and then there will
be 40.50 unsupervised school children on the beach and some of the houses are only two or three
feet from the street right-of-way, which is not unusual throughout the waterfront, this will create
a policing problem and create a liability for these proFerty owners when people stray from the
right-of-way onto private property. He added he be ieved the street ends are currently over.
utilized, particularly 13th Street, and in some instances the plan will limit what has been done by
neighbors up to thispoint and the street ends were not originally designed for parks.
Roger Crowe, 2311 Evans Street, stated providing public access is important. Waters
Adjoining our City are public trust waters belonging to people of the stale; however, control needs
to be exercised in providing public access so as not to disturb or adversely impact the existing
neighborhoods. Additional trash, traffic or crime is not needed in neighborhoods. Before
making decisions on any site the effects on the neighborhood should be considered. Any public
access should be installed only as a benefrt to the people. If regional access is desired then
regional access is what should be planned; find a place, buy the property and open it up and do it
right. Don't provide 'local' accesses which will not be utilized in the implementation of tl-e
36.1

1
1
1
1
public access process. Traffic should be considered and its impact on a neighborhood; i.e., 24111
Street which has only one way in and one way out and is already over -burdened with traffic.
Anna Doughton, 2205 Evans Street, read a letter submitted by Robert Winston Cart,
Durham, NC, owner of property on Sunset Drive. Mr. Carr's letter advised there are many ways
to use waterfront access money for better public good, the vitality of our marine life is coming
under greater pressure from pollution every year and the money could be better used cleaning up
sources contaminating our sounds, rivers and creeks which would insure a good harvest of fish
and shellfish and continue the livelihood for commercial fisherman. Recreational activities should
be secondary to the fundamental issues of pollution control. The letter stated it appeared tie
proposed plan was a promotion by government entities and not the result of cidzen petition as is
the norm. The flame of a select 'committee' and the employment of a professional firm to
develop a plan are all part of the deception for bureaucratic expansion. There are 63 access
paints identified on the access map which should not cost more than a few million dollars which
rs the tip of the iceberg. There will be more bureaucratic positions required to administer this
work. Policing will be required. He questioned if the citizens wished to allow or promote
'spending of tax money in such a foolhardy manner.
Frank Best, 309 South 19th Street, stated the preliminary access plan appears to go way
beyond the Town's original idea to itist clean up the street ends. The plan seems to address more
projects of a regional magnitude with boat launch ramps, fishing piers, docks and bollards. It
calls for development of street ends which will greatly impact single-family neighborhoods on
both the north and south sides of town and will cause hardships to these neighborhoods. Some of
the street ends are already overcrowded with vehicles and developing these street ends with lights,
trash cans and bollards this will draw more cars and create more congestion. Currently, many of
the property owners along these street ends maintain these street end areas with landscaping and
cleanliness to add a welcome.feeling to the neighbors who currently use the area; this idea can
grow without adoption of a formal document. He suggested Council not adopt the plan but use it
as reference for more highly thought-out, local, future development. He suggested considering
the value of portions of the document which would not negatively impact neighborhoods, such as
a communityYMCA pool which would offer year-round access to water; consider. linking the
resources of the Town with those of the College and the NC Wildlife Commission.
W. f. 'lake' Derby, 2405 Evans Street, commented he refers to the Waterfront Access
Plan in this sense; it will address the three 'T's'-terrible trouble for Morehead City, traffic and
trash. The proposal will greatly increase the traffic and encourage trespassing on private property
and private w-aterfront and increased traffic will deny use of the waterfront street ends to walkers,
cyclist, skaters, joggers and baby -strollers who currently have the pleasure of using them. Trash
is currently a problem that will be increased; double the people, double the trash. He added that
adoption of the plan will clear the way to evervthine no one wants.
Edith Derry, 1811 Shepard Street, questioned why money should be spent to provide
water access for those from up -state and out-of-state and destroy the peace, tranquillity, and
charm in the neighborhoods. She stated that over the years she has watched the sand -bar out
from I8th and 20th Streets has turned into another Coney Island and there are cars with out-cf-
state licenses parked all along the street ends. The noise and nuisance factors are great now and
prevent her from taking an afternoon nap. She voiced her objection to Morehead City becoming
a 'honky-tonk beach town'.
Susan Bailey, 2211 Evans Street, who lives the second house from the bridge, stated she
had witnessed the problems with crime, unsupervised teenagers, substance abuse, the homeless at
the access points. Young run-aways stay under the bridge as well as people there doing drugs,
drinking, leaving trash, leaving graffiti and urinating on the side of the bridge. We are inviting
more trouble by providing more access.
Michael Gardner, 2108 Shepard Street, pointed out the plan references it to be a plan for
the primary benefit of Morehead City citizens and he believed this was a naive view and a basic
flaw in the document because by opening and then advertising these public areas we are then
inviting a non-= paying, out-of-town, John Q Public, who have no reason to regard these areas
as their own back yard. He stated the issue was not sharing the beaches but rather safety and
security. Streets are already crowded with traffic and parking of residents and adding to that the
nightmare of additional crowding is out of the question. He spoke strongly to maintaining the
integrity, security and tradition of the neighborhoods.
P. H. 'Sonny Geer, 1207 Evans Street, voiced his objection to the proposal. He pointed
out the plan would devalue property on both Bogue Sound and Calico Creek. He gave the history
of the first significant CAMA regulation.
Don Bockelman, 1112 Shepard Street, voiced his concern for the Impact on bicyclist and
walkers, especially in the loth Street access area and for the Harborview Towers area.
Buck Matthews, 3303 Evans Street, voiced his objection to beaurocracy over
governmental regulations that effect the livelihood of people. -He stressed that street ends the
town controls should be opened and maintained for the use of citizens of Morehead City. He
voiced his objection to bringing in an outer -town expert to tell what is needed.
There being no further comments, Commissioner Nelson thanked everyone for coming
and for the comments made and advised the Board would take these comments under
consideration. The meeting was adjourned at 8:42 p.m. by Mayor Horton.
ATTEST:
0 £Mayor W. C. Horton
T
j
t h, eputy City Clcr
36.2

In addition to the comments made by speakers at the June 1998 public forum, the
following petitions were received:
Petition #1: Fifteen [15] residents requested that no action be taken on North
6th Street.
Petition #2: Sixty-one [61] residents requested that the Town Council use the
Waterfront Access Plan only as a reference guide and not adopt the
plan as part of any Land Use Plan. Also, the residents asked that
no CAMA funds be used in the provision of public access.
36.3

' Appendix D. 1997 Land Use Plan Policies on Access
These final products (Plan and Map) with their accompanying explanations, establish a base of
' information whereby the Town is empowered to work toward waterfront access improvements
desired by the community. The Plan and Map should also serve to further the water access goals
' and objectives of the Town by providing a constant source of background information concerning
the wants and needs of the Town and its water access areas.
' Policy No.I of Policy Statement 3.490 states that the To= -%tiill continue to encourage public water access
to the maximum extent feasible. Implementation Strategies:
' 2. The Town will prepare a Waterfront Access Plan, including cost estimates for the
development of improvements.
' 8. The To-= N,611 consider seeking grant assistance through the Division of Coastal
Management to develop a Waterfront Access Plan.
Policy No. 2 of Policy Statement 3.490 states that the Town will include public water access in its plans to
redevelop the downtown waterfront district. The Town will pursue resources to expand recreational
opportunities along the dovmtonm A mterfront and improve public access through the utilization of CAMA
1 access funds and any other State or federal funds that might be used for recreational facility acquisition and
development. Implementation Strategies:
1. The ToNNn still apply for state or federal assistance on an annual basis to acquire and/or
' develop more recreational facilities.
Policy No. 3 of Policy Statement 3.490 states that the Town will continue to ensure that existing water
access points, including all street ends and alleys, are not closed. Implementation Strategies:
1. The Town will ensure those street ends that terminate at Bogue Sound and Calico Bay will
' be kept open as public venter access points.
Policy No. 5 of Policy Statement 3.490 states that the Trnvn will require, through its Subdivision
Regulations and Zoning Ordinance, provisions for common water access in waterfront subdivisions and
pubic water access for major residential developments -M&h adjoin a taterfront for a distance of 1,200
feet or more. Implementation Strategies:
' 4. The Town Council, Planning Board, and Board of Adjustment hill utilize the policy
statements outlined in the Land Use Plan before making decisions on land development
' issues.
5. The Tottm will continue to administer and enforce its land use regulatory tools to achieve
' the policies outlined.
' mtmh«a city Waterfront Access Pig,
37

I
Appendix E. Regulatory Information
' Water Quality & Classification System
The 1997 Morehead City CAMA Land Use Plan identifies the location of Morehead City's
' planning area within a sub -basin of the White Oak River Basin. Most of this sub -basin is
estuarine, with the Newport River as the only major source of freshwater. Water pollution is
caused by a number of substances, including sediment, nutrients, bacteria, oxygen -demanding
' wastes and toxic substances, such as heavy metals, chlorine and pesticides. The sources of these
pollutants are one of two types: point -source or nonpoint-source.
' Point -sources are discharges that enter surface waters through a pipe, ditch or other well-defined
point of discharge to often include discharges from wastewater treatment plants or large urban
and industrial water systems, while nonpoint-sources generally include storm water runoff from
' small urban areas (less than 100,000 population), forestry, mining, agricultural or other lands.
Within the Morehead City Planning Area, the primary water pollution sources of estuarine waters
are estimated to be multiple nonpoint-sources including agriculture, forestry; urban runoff, septic
' tank runoff and marinas, as well as, point -sources like the Morehead City Wastewater Treatment
Plant and State Port.
Ll
..1
Cl
' Mombead City Waterfront Amm Plan 38

'
Appendix F.
Inventory Database
The following pages include some of the inventory data collected by the Planting Team and
provided to the town.
A sample field survey instrument of the type used to collect data is also
shown.
'
As previously stated, each existing and potential access site was assigned a site identification
number (SIN) and a survey instrument was prepared to allow for field reconnaissance and the
inventory of those locations. It was designed to identify and validate existing access sites and the
usage of those sites for various recreational opportunities. The following are the fully worded
titles of the abbreviations that appear in the Waterfront Access Plan Inventory Database.
1
Abbreviated
Title Full Title
1.
Site ID
Site Identification Number (SIN)
2.
SC Name
Name of Street End or Rights -of -Way adjacent to shore
'
3.
Site Class
Level of Access Potential
4.
Inf. Activities
Recreational activities identified without accommodating facilities
'
5.
6.
Legal Status
Land Use
Identification of Rights -of -Way closed to public access
Present activities on site
7.
North Uses
Present activities to die north of the site on adjacent property
8.
South Uses
Present activities to die south of the site on adjacent property
'
9.
East Uses
Present activities to the cast of the site on adjacent property
10.
West Uses
Present activities to the west of die site on adjacent property
11.
Pedes
Presence of pedestrian access improvements on site
12.
Auto
Presence of automobile access improvements on site
13.
Parking
Corresponding number of parking spaces to automobile access
improvements on site
14.
15.
Type
Site Zoning
Type of parking present on site
Present zoning of the site
16.
North Zoning
Present zoning of adjacent property to the north of the site
17.
South Zoning
Present zoning of adjacent property to the south of the site
'
19.
East Zoning
Present zoning of adjacent property to tic east of the site
19.
West Zoning
Present zoning of adjacent property to the west of the site
20.
Fishing
Presence of activities to accommodate sport or commercial fishing on
site
'
21.
Piers
Presence of pier(s) on or adjacent to site
22.
Boardwalks
Presence of boardwalk(s) on or adjacent to site
'
23.
24.
Concessions
Gazebo
Presence of concessions on or adjacent to site
Presence of gazebo(s) on or adjacent to site
25.
Litter
Presence of litter receptacles on site
26.
W Fountain
Presence of drinking fountains on site
'
27.
Swimming
Presence of informal or approved swimming activities on site
29.
Restrooms
Presence of restroom facilities on site
29.
Picnic
Presence of picnic tables and facilities on site
'
30.
Lighting
Presence of street lamps on site
' hlmbwd city w,ier> wt A� Pin
39

I
Appendix G. Funding Resources
' Please see the attached information on State and Federal funds available for coastal waterfront
access projects for fiscal year 1998-99. Funding for 1999-2000 would be available under the
same programs.
NC Division of Coastal Management
Public Beacb and Coastal Waterfront Access Program
NOTICE OF AVAILABLE FUNDS
February 19,1999
' FUNDS AVAILABLE The N.C. Division of Coastal Management anticipates funds will be available
for public beach and coastal waterfront access projects in 98-99.
' ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS The 20 coastal counties and incorporated municipalities tiircin that have public
trust waters (ocean, estuarine or riverine waters) within their jurisdiction.
' GRANT PERIODS September 1, 1998 to August 30. 1999 (dates subject to change)
PRE -APPLICATION AND Local governments can obtain assistance with both pre -and final application
FINAL APPLICATION preparation from the appropriate DCM District Planner listed below.
' ASSISTANCE AND
SUBMITTAL Pre -applications are due on or before April 9, 1999.
Final applications are due on or before June 1, 1998.
RANGE and AVERAGE of $301,347 awarded in FY 95-96: Average grant $37,668
PREVIOUS GRANTS (Range: 54,080 to SI00,000)
' 5408,847 awarded in FY 96-97: Average grant $37,169
(Range: $2,250 to 571,868)
$484,954 awarded in FY 97-98: Average grant $40,413
(Range:$13,847 to $92,113)
' MATCH REQUIREMENT Local governments must contribute at least 25% of the total project cost. At
least 1/2 local match must be in cash; the remainder may be in -kind match (e.g.
labor, equipment, materials, land).
POST -ASSISTANCE Project sponsors (local governments) are required to maintain and operate the
REQUIREMENTS public access facilities for the entire anticipated life of the project
(approximately 25 }-cars).
' hiorehendCity WaterfrontAccess Plm 40
1

Query sibee/Claaa&WRI Status
i
1
1
`: eats Cfaas'f'
IM Ad6vrGea
ISdatue .:
7
S. 3rd Sbaat
Urban Waterfront
S"Wix ardin
2
S. aM Street
Urban Waterfront
None
3
. 6M Street
Urban Watehoord
a
S. 7th Streat
Urban Watedront
5
S. 6M Street
Urban Watedrord
6
. bar SUM
Urban Water rod
7
. 101h SU.0
Commundy
8
S. 11M Street
Commun'
9
S. 12M Street
Local
Sunbathing
10
S. 1311, Street
Local
switathin,
113.
lath Strand
Local
12
S 15th Street
Local
13
S. 16M Street
Local
S.rumoung
14
3. 171h Street
Local
15
S. 18M Street
Local
163.
79M Street
Local
'mmtnp
18
S. 21st Street
Local
19
S 22nd Street
Local
20
S 24M Street
Nei hboonood
ishi
27
S. 25M Street
Local
sumusthin
22
S. 26M Street
Local
unbaNin
23
S. 27M Street
Local
24
S. 26M Street
Local
25
S. 29M Street
Local
unbsNi
26
S. 30th Street
Local
27
Suwat Drw*
Local
28
S. 32M Street
Local
29
S.33rd Sbesd
Local
30
S. 34%Street
Local
31
NC WiMIAe Aeneas
Regional
32
Waltscs Road
Local
33
NC Man. Fiahedas
Leval
34
Banks Street
Local
35
Lockhart Street
Leval
38
OaksmM Boulevard
Local
37
Sawmah Avenue
Local
38
Lake Awrxa
Leval
39
S. Larkin Street
Loral
40
S. Rochelle Driv
Laval
41
\firginia Awnw
Local
42
Fonda Avenue
Local
43
Miami Avenue
Local
4
Salem Avenue
Local
45
Riverside Avenue
Local
48
Sayyiery Avenue
Neighborhood
47
N. 24M Street
Local
48
N. 25%Street
Leal
a9
N. 23rd Street
Nei hbodgo0
50
N. 22nd Street
Nei hoorhoed
51
BaNwen N. 17M Street b N. 18M Street
Local
52
N. 17M StreetN. 76M Street
Neighborhood
53
N. i5M Street
Local
54
N. taM Street
Local
55
N. 13M Street
Neighborhood
56
N. 12M Street
Local
57
N. 110, Street
Cxwnmunity
58
N. 10M Streat
Local
59
N. 9M Soared
Leval
80
N. 8M Street
Local
81
N. 71, Street
Nei hbodmd
62
N. 6M Strewn
Neighborhood
63
N. 5M Street
Local
61
N. 201h Street of Calico Drba
Nei hborhood
65
N. 15%Street ofCalm Drive)
Local
Clonad
68
N. 15M Street(North of Calico DMus
Local
67
Blairpoint (At End of County Club Road)
Nei hbencuc l
68
N. 2%, Street(North of Ma Loop Rw
Local
69
All of Shackleford Streeli
Local
70
S. tom Street
Local
1

I
Owry s"Mand t1»
1
1
1
1
1
-:
S. 3m Street
iff, Lmd Vile:! ..
Multi -Family d Mo1N
vrtl14tJ6es•
rind
5oetil'tlsasI
aW
Bdvt7faea
MuM-Family
1 West 't)ies:::
Mulli-Famil
2S.
itch Street
VaunWpen Suu
i Mw
Commemial
MufthFamily
Restaurant
3S.
8ch Street
CommemMl
ResbwaIt
Rettawent
Restaurant
Restaurant
a
S. 7th Sheet
Restaurant
Arkin Lot
star
Retail
Restaurant
5S.
8ch Street
Institutional d Rapid
Mile-Famll
Recoil
Restaurant
Paming Lot
es.
9th Sheet
In titubonal
Inetrlplional
Ater
Public Park
Boat Renate
7
S.10th Street
VauntlOpan Speu
in will
Water
CommemMl
Off"
8
&11th Sbaet
VaunVOpen Speu
'n M-Fsmi
aW
Vacant:
Singh Fsmily
9
S. 12M Street
Vacami Space
armilyy
single-Familysingle-Fainily
Vaunt BuIM'
10
S. 13th Street
VauntlOpen specia
SmgM-Farnily
her
Single —Family
Sin le -Farm
11
S. lath Street
VsranWpen Space
Sin ISFami
aw
Vaunt
Sin b-Famil
12
S. 15th Strew
VacaMfOlen Space
Sin b-Famil
star
Sin9I.Femily
Sin ISFamil
19
S.t6th Street
vaca-vopenspace
Sin ISFamil
Ater
Sin ISFamil
Sin Is-Famil
14
S. 17th Street
VacanVOPen Space
S. le-Fami
Her
Single-Fainflf
Sin ISFamil
15
S 18th Street
acsntMO n Scene
Si le-Fami
ater
Sin Ie-Family
Single -Farm
le
.19th Street
Vacamopen Suu
Si IeFami
Ater
Sin *Famil
Single -Family
18
S. 21H Some:
VaeanVOcen Space
Sin ISFami
star
SiriglSF..ily
Single-Famil
19
S. 22nd Street
VauntiOpen Space
Sin I Famil
aW
Sql*-F.nvly
Sin ISFamil
20
S. lath Street
VacenVOun Space
Single—FamilySingle-Family
ater
Single—FamilySingle,Fam.ly
Sin ISFamil
21
S. 25th SVeat
VacamK)"n Space
SinglM.-Fainily
abr
Family
S ISFamil
22
S. 28th Street
Vacant'Cpan Space
Singki
Water
SingI.F.ily
Single.Family
23
S. 27ch Stniet
VacantNpen Speu
M-FamilyWater
Sin ISFamily
Sin ISFamI
24
pspecekFsnwWater
$ngFamOY
Si.91eFa.ily
2S.thle
S
Vacant/Open State,
Sinale-Family
Water
Sm9l"amily
SinnilWFannily
3N Street
Vaunt/O n Space
27
nst Ome
VacanVOun s ace
32nd Streat
VawwSuu
Sin laFemil
Her
Si ISFamily
Sin ISa
mil33rd
A
Street
VacenUOpen Space3ath$Reel
Vace Specie
ater
Si M-Fami
Single -Family
31
CWildlife Arsaaa
Va.nVOpan Spa.
Pa Lets
ater
& ISFamil
Menu Rsm
tace Road
VaunVOpen
Water
CCC
COO
33
NO Mmne Fislunes
Vwnt/Open Spy"
NO Manne Fah
Water
NO Rest Ana
Manna FMhane
34
Banks Straw
VacanVOun Space
CO
WOMB
Vaurd
CCC
35
Lockhart Street
Vacentto"n Suu
in WFamil
ater
Sm9le-Fainfly
Sin ISFamil
38
Oaksmb BouMwrd
Vaun n Space
' ISFamil
Water
SngMFsmdy
Sin ISFamil
37
Savan i h Avenue
VacentfCyen Suu
Si M-Fami
Water
wator
SirgleF.ily
W
Laks Awn"
VatenVow Suu
MultWamily
Water
Boer PMr
But Pit
39
S.Larkin Street
acant/Oun Space
Smannyater
SingI.Fainly
SingleFamil
aO
S. Rochelle Oros
Vacaint/OponSpace
Sin ISFamil
Wow
SmgM-F.mdy
Sin ISFamil
41%W
inch Avenue
VaimnVOpenSu4
Sinql*-Famiiy
View
Single.liannily
Sin
@Florida
Awnw
Vaca wiee Suit
Single -Family
Watw
Si ISFamil
Sin ISFamil
43
Miami Awnus
Commercial Boat Ranng
Single.Family
Water
Sinql*Family
Sn ISFamil
as
Salami Awnw
Commensal Boer Ramp
Singlo.Family
Water
Sin M-Fsm'
SnglSFamil
45
Riverside Awnw
Commamial Boat Ramp
SingleF.mily
Wow
Sin
Single.Famly
46
Ba Awnw
Vaunt/Owo Space
Sin le-Famil
ater
MuthFamil
Single -Family
A7
N. 249, Street
VacwntfOpa.5 ace
wate,
Sin ISFamil
Singla-F.mly
Sin ISFamil
48
N. 25th Strew
Va.nVOpen Site"
star
Singie-Fsmily
Si.
Single -Family
49
N. 23,1 Strew
VaunVOpen Suu
Ater
Sn ISFami
Single—FamilySingle-Fannly
Sn ISFamil
50
N. 22nd Strew
aunt/Coen Space
ater jSimqk
FsmifySingle-Family,
SiISFamil
51
Bwveen N. 17th Strew d N. 18th Street
Vacentfope i spa"
star JSinglSFamilv
Single —Family
Sn l -Family
62
.17th Sheet d N. lath Strew
Vac*mvC"n Space
ads, ISiNle-Family
SagI.Fomily
Sitig-Fmily
53
N. 15th Street
ISi.glaF.mily
Sin ISFamil
Single -Family
54
N. lath Street
VacentiDpsn Space,
ater
Sin ISFamil
Sinql*Fsmily
Sn ISFamil
65
N. 13thStreet
Vwant/Open Suu
ater
SingMFsmily
SinglSFamiiy
Sin ISFami
56
N. 12th Strew
VacenVOpen Space
aw
S M-Finaily
S M-Fsmil
Sin IeFamil
57
N. 11th Sbaet
VaconMi an S n
ate,
Single -Family
Sinole-Family
Sn ISFami
58
N. 1gh5beet
VawnVOWSpace
ewer
SingleFamily jSingIeFamilySn
M-Famil
59
N. BdI Sheet
VacanVOpen Space
star
Sn M-Famil
Si WFsmi
Singi -Famd
60
N. Bch Strast
VaunVOun Space
ate,
Sing*Family
SmglSFmmily
Sin ISFamil
61
N.7th Street
VacaMlOvenSpec,
ate,
Sn IeFamil
Single-Family
In Ie.Famil
02
N. ft Street
Vs<ant/Open Space
ewer
Single -Family
Smg*Family
SngM-Farm
63
M 5th Street
VaunVOpm Speu
star
S leFam'
Reserve
SmillaeFamily
64
N. 20th Sheet Sant of Calico pke)
Vaunt/Open Space
rple-Fami
CemetM
WatatMarsh
Wanimilitarph
65
N. 18th Street South of Calico Rne
VaoanVOm, Suu
Walwfliticas
SrgM-Family
SwgWFacnily
66N.18th
SbW onhw Cdiu Drlva
VaunVOpen Suu
event
SingleF.ruily,
Sn ISFamil
Sin ISFamil
87
Blai At Emil of County Club Road)
VacanVOpen State
sum
Vaunt
Vacant
Vaunt
68
N. 20th Street oM of Maylumy Loop Roa
VamWun S w
Sin M.Famil
SinqWFamily
Vaunt
Sin le-Famil
69
Alle tut w Shackleford Sheen
SingMFsmil
'n bFami
star
Sin bFamil
Sngle-Fam11
705.
20u1 Street
Vaunt
'ngM-Family
star
Smgl Family
Singh Family

0
ouny SJW WAa
1
I
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
I.1
M4
-Jm
�
�
®
a■au��
�
■■a����aaa
®
•
■�a�!�a�aaa
a�
-
■�at���aaa
a�
■•ai!�a�aaa
■:ai•aa�aaa
a�
■jai■���
•
uua��
®:
■■ai!m�aaa
■
H

m m m m m m m m m m m m m
OW-mar q
21S
.1k
WN
R.~10
R.~M 5 a
R,Od l 5 3
tan
pr49slltl
14
WdvNa
Is
&S
W&Miw
Oftmd&s
Wd
W.0
rv�o 5 3
m
Pe
M
7
a
IN
flj4drMN
R.N w
R I
qrN
ftk=
32
7
A
32
.k.
PYmed
R15 S R.
R.11�lw 15 a po
�61 15 4 PD
is
:.V�* 13
Pral 15
42
OA�
Rqo�w 15 & M
Is . P.
Is
15
Is
43
4
Mv�lw 13
R,9�lw 13
as
R,W�im 7 , P.
rdm A�
7 a pp
A�ds
2.� ft,d
K.W�lw S
R,��Iwfi
R"d
41
2M ft,M
lmm�
R,MUMS
o�5
-tt"—P! 3
ll*�A
w 1
52
53
4 lm54,VAN I"hw.m
M01.1 C.
w
S.
4. 14M
C
�W
I NI
wjlm
Nw
55
* 131h W.0
rl
56
57
j 12h �.o
1 llmft.d
c
C.
a I
10
go
I ft �d
02
t 2b Z"d
RS
Pe dMW
10
63
1 In RMA
h wc1
1
15
qe GWY1
P.
R.. A,
c.d.,
1
Mh M'.0
R,~10 5 S
R.OMKiml�s
IR
R:l �lw
=

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OP
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
February 18, 1998
MEMORANDUM
PUBLIC EEAACH AND
SAL 20NT
TO: Local Officials in the Coastal Area
PROGRAM�OGRAM�ss
ACCESS
®
NC COATfAL
NAYAGENENT
FROM: Roger N. SchecAl��
PROGRA}1
SUBJECT: Public Beach and Coastal Waterfront Access Funds (FY 98-99)
I am pleased to notify local governments in the 20-county coastal area that the Division of
Coastal Management anticipates funding will be available for Public Beach and Coastal
Waterfront Access projects in fiscal year 1997-98. Local governments are invited to
apply for grant funds to complete one-year projects beginning in September 1998.
The primary objective of the public access program is to provide pedestrian access to
public beaches and public trust waters in the 20 coastal counties. Grant funds may be
used for land acquisition (including "unbuildable" lots) and low-cost construction
projects that are consistent with the State guidelines for public access in the coastal area
(15A NCAC 7M .0300). Boating and fishing facilities may be included, provided that the
primary objective of the project is to improve pedestrian access. Examples of eligible
projects include the following:
a) local access sites - provide pedestrian access with few, if any, other facilities.
b) neighborhood access sites - may include parking (5-25 cars) and other facilities.
c) regional access sites - parking for 25-80 cars, restrooms and other facilities.
d) multi -regional access sites - parking for 80-200 cars, restrooms, other facilities.
e) urban waterfront access sites - improve public access to deteriorating or under-
utilized urban waterfronts through reconstruction or rehabilitation.
The following general criteria will be used to select projects to receive grant assistance:
* All facilities must be handicapped accessible;
* Applicant demonstrates a need for the project due to high demand for public
access and limited opportunities;
* Applicant has not received previous assistance from this grant program;
* Project proposal includes multiple funding sources (in addition to DCM);
* Project location includes donated land deemed'hnbuildable' due to regulations
or physical limitations;
* Project is identified in a local beach or waterfront access plan; and
* Applicant has demonstrated its ability to complete previous projects successfully
with funds from this grant program.
P10. Sol 176*T. RAL*1*N, NC 17611-76*711T2* CAPITAL OLTC., RAL6I6N. NC 21606
►Noe4*1*-7**416* TAx*19-73a-16*e
AN EQUAL OPPGRTMNITT 1A"1ftNAMV&AR *N *MPL*T6R-*OX RZCTCL[O/IOIi POST-CON.UMER PAPOI

Local Officials in the Coastal Area
February IS, 1998
Page 2
Local government matching contributions must be at least 25 percent of the total project cost.
At least r/z of the local contribution must be cash match; the remainder may be in -kind match.
Also, local governments that submitted applications in previous years but were not selected for
funding must re -apply for consideration with the pool of new applications.
Local governments interested in receiving financial assistance from this grant program must
complete the enclosed pre -application form. The pre -application must be received by the
Division of Coastal Management on or before Auril 9.1998. The Division will review the pre -
applications and select a number of proposals for further consideration.
Local governments whose proposals are selected will be asked to submit a final application with
more detailed project information. Final application forts will be provided at that time. Prior
to submitting a final application, the local government shall hold a public meeting or hearing to
' discuss its proposal for a new public access project. The local government shall consider public
comments prior to its decision to apply for funds. Final applications must be received on or
before June 1.1998.
Local governments are encouraged to include their local contribution in their FY 98-99 budget.
All final applicants will be notified in mid- to late -June as to whether the Division intends to
fund their project All proposals will be circulated for review through the State Clearinghouse, a
requirement of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The awarding of grants by the
Governor is likely to be announced in August.
I hope you will consider using this funding source to help make a positive and lasting
contribution to your community's pubic access efforts. If you have any questions, please call
the DCM District Planner for your region of the coast. They are listed on the enclosed notice.
Enclosures