[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
1 JOdt~~~~~~~~~~i Beach tn"4 I~~~~~~~~~Peae y 1439ri Ricvmd'Patflm, orvisir I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~dI, HD~ 268~~~~~~~~~~~~' IL6 I1991 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413 Property of {i, Library I~I "A report of Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries & Parks to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration pursuant to NOAA Award No. NA9OAA-D-CZ917" C-f Ah And~~~~~IIIO1 en I>;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ U ~~~~~~~TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Acknowledgements................... 5 Introduction. ....................7 I ~~Study Area Definition. ...............11 Socio-Economic Data. ................14 Population. ...................14 Income. .....................17 Employment. ...................18 Retail Trade. ..................21 Land Use And Zoning. ................29 I ~~~Land Use Summary. ................29 Zoning summary. .................32 Traffic And Parking. ................37 I ~~~Traffic Summary. ................37 Parking Summary. ................40 Issues And Concerns. ................44 Assets And Constraints. ...............47 I ~~Opinion Surveys. ..................50 Merchant Survey Summary. ............50 Resident Survey Summary. ............60 Goals And Objectives. ................69 Appendix A: Excerpt From Sand Beach Master Plan . . . 94 Appendix B: Property Ownership Listing And Map . . . .104 Appendix C: Survey Forms. ..............118 Appendix D: Long Beach Urban Waterfront Advisory Committee. ...............128 LIST OF MAPS, TABLES AND FIGURES Page Map 1. Study Area Map ................ 12 Table 1. Population and Growth Rate for Long Beach and Harrison County, 1930-1990.... 14 Table 2. Average Household Size for Mississippi, Harrison County, Long Beach, Biloxi, Gulfport, Pass Christian and D'Iberville, 1980 and 1990 .............. 15 Table 3. Age Distribution of Harrison County, Long Beach, Biloxi, Gulfport, Pass Christian and D'Iberville Residents, 1990. . . 15 Table 4. Population by Sex for Harrison County, Long Beach, Biloxi, Gulfport, Pass Christian and D'Iberville, 1990 ........ 16 Table 5. Population by Race for Harrison County, Long Beach, Biloxi, Gulfport, Pass Christian and D'Iberville, 1990 ........ 16 Table 6. Population Densities for Harrison County, Long Beach, Biloxi, Gulfport, Pass Christian and D'Iberville, 1980 and 1990 . . . 17 Table 7. Per Capita Income for Harrison County, Long Beach, Biloxi, Gulfport, Pass Christian and D'Iberville, 1979 and 1985 . . . 17 Table 8. Median Household Income and Percent Below Poverty Level for Harrison County, Long Beach, Biloxi, Gulfport, Pass Christian and D'Iberville, 1979 ............. 18 Table 9. Percent of Working Residents in Long Beach by Employment Sector, 1980, and Projected 1992 Salaries for the Mississippi Coastal Area which Correspond to the Sectors ................ 19 Table 10. Projected Employment Increases by Sector from 1989 - 2000 for the Mississippi Coastal Area .............. 19 Table 11. Unemployment Rates for Harrison, Hancock and Jackson Counties, January, 1989 - September, 1991 ................ 20 Table 12. Percentage of Workers Aged 16 and Over Working Outside Area of Residence for Harrison County, Long Beach, Biloxi, Gulfport, Pass Christian and D'Iberville, 1980 ....... 20 Table 13. Total Annual Gross Sales in Harrison County, Long Beach, Biloxi, Gulfport, Pass Christian and D'Iberville, 1987 ..... 23 Table 14. Amount of Change in Gross Sales from Previous Year by Industry Group in Harrison County, 1987 - 1991 ......... 24 3 Table 15. Amount of Change in Gross Sales from Previous Year by Industry Group in Long Beach, 1987 - 1991. ...........25 Table 16. Major Long Beach Manufacturers. .......26 I ~~Table 17. Other Major Harrison County Manufacturers. ................26 Map 2. Land Use Map. ................31 Table 18. Existing Land Use Acreage by Use Category I ~~~~~within the Study Area. ............32 Map 3. Zoning Map. .................35 Table 19. Average Daily Traffic on Selected Study Area Streets, 1991. .............38 U ~~Map 4. Traffic Count Locations. ...........39 Map 5. Parking Location Map. ............42 Figure 1. Issues and Concerns. .............44 Figure 2. Assets. ...................47 Figure 3. Constraints. .................48 Map 6. Business Directory Map. ...........52 I ~~Figure-4. Business Directory Listing. .........53 Table 20. Primary Methods Used For Promoting Study Area Businesses. ...............56 Figure 5. Proposed Beach/Harbor Access Project. ....87 Figure 6. Property Ownership Listing By Parcel. ....104 Map 7. Parcel Map. .................116 Figure 7. Merchant Survey Form. ............118 Figure S. Resident Survey Form. ............119 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ U ~~~~~~~ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I ~~Numerous individuals have contributed to the preparation of this study, including private citizens and public officials in the City of Long Beach and representatives of regional I ~~and state agencies. The Gulf Regional Planning Commission is most appreciative of the valuable assistance provided by Mayor Glenn Rishel and the administrative personnel of the City throughout the course of the study. I ~~A special thanks is extended to the members of the Long Beach Urban Waterfront Advisory Committee for their dedicated assistance and guidance in developing the study. Particular thanks is due Mr. Phil Kies, Chairman of the Committee,, and Mrs. Karen Livengood for her energetic assistance in conducting the opinion surveys. I ~Additional thanks must also be given to the nearly 400 merchants and residents of Long Beach who took the time to participate in the opinion surveys which formed the premises I ~~upon which most of the recommendations herein were based. Last, but certainly not least, the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, Bureau of Marine Resources must be commended for its provision of- invaluable administrative and funding assistance. once again, the MDWFP/BMR has demonstrated its commitment to the I ~preservation and enhancement of the coastal areas of Mississippi. I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I I I I I I I I Introduction I I I I I I I I I I I I INTRODUCTION Like most communities on the coast, Long Beach's most notable feature is its waterfront. And like most other communities, the bulk of business activity moved from the old downtown and waterfront area to a more centralized location in response to population growth, changing demographics, and marketing trends. Despite its similarities, Long Beach differs from other coast communities in the way its waterfront developed. In contrast to the older cities of the coast which started their development on the water and because of the water, Long Beach had an inland birth. It started as a market community and a rail shipment point for nearby farming operations. It never had the seafood and marine development so common to its sister communities. I ~~This history had demonstrable effect on the waterfront area of Long Beach, an effect which gives Long Beach certain development opportunities not shared by other cities. The I ~~waterfront area is not as historic; the existing development patterns are less congested, there is a greater amount of land area to develop, and accommodating the automobile is much easier than in other places. The infrastructure is generally in better shape, and can more easily serve additional development. I ~~The Long Beach Harbor is a contemporary development as harbors go on the coast. It is more spacious than most, and has a great deal of landward development potential. Finally, while some businesses have left the area and moved further north, leaving behind several large vacant buildings, the reverse has also happened when the Oak Harbor I ~~shopping center was developed on U.S. 90. This is a major draw of traffic and people to the area, and is a testimony to the underlying economic vitality of Long Beach's I ~~waterfront area. Even though this large scale development clashes with customary notions of "quaint" downtown development patterns, it does provide a business magnet for * ~the area to a degree not enjoyed by other downtown districts. Long Beach has confronted the challenge of its waterfront area by initiating an urban waterfront study with the help of Gulf Regional Planning Commission (GRPC) . Financial support for urban waterfront planning is provided by the I ~~Mississippi Bureau of Marine Resources (BMR) as part of the Mississippi Coastal Program. 7 Urban waterfronts provide unique economic and social benefits to the coast. Historic downtown areas provide I ~~important opportunities for public access to the waterfront. Even though many of these waterfront areas have lapsed into decline, they are still accessible to the areas' population I ~~centers. These areas also include points of historical interest, and are typically the focus of a community's waterfront leisure activities. I ~~Under contract with the City of Long Beach, Gulf Regional Planning Commission (GRPC) developed an urban waterfront plan for the city in conjunction with a task force consisting of area businesspeople and other interested U ~~citizens. The study was logically broken down into four components: U ~~~1. PRELIMINARY WORK: During this phase, the project area was identified, existing planning work for the area was compiled along with other documentary information on I ~property boundaries, utility locations and easements, bulkheads and marine structures, and other infrastructure characteristics. Local, state, and federal laws and I ~~regulations affecting the area were reviewed. 2. DATA COLLECTION: This component included a comprehensive land use survey to document current user activities and to inventory structures in the area. In addition, data was collected on aesthetic and environmental concerns, traffic circulation, parking and road conditions. I ~~Finally, opinion surveys were conducted to identify business conditions, shopping patterns, perceptions and other issues relevant to the area's business climate. 3. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS: All of the data collected was analyzed to identify the problems and * ~~opportunities for improving the area. 4. RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the data collected and analysis, a set of recommendations for the future development of Long Beach's urban waterfront was developed. During the course of this study, the Gulf Regional Planning Commission conducted extensive field research and surveys to compile data and obtain insight regarding the attributes, problems and potential of the Long Beach urban waterfront area. Studies and reports of downtown and waterfront I ~~development and/or revitalization activities and experiences of other areas were obtained and reviewed to broaden the perspective from which the conclusions and recommendations I ~~herein were drawn. I ~While data collection, compilation and analysis play important roles in any study, two very important components of this study were the Advisory Committee and the opinion I ~~surveys. The Advisory Committee consisted of 32 members whose individual and collective participation provided invaluable insight regarding their perceptions of existing I ~~conditions, And their ideas for creating a more viable urban waterfront area. Two opinion surveys were conducted, a merchant survey and a resident survey, which illuminated many of the concerns and visions of the Long Beach people regarding their city both as it is today, and as they would have it tomorrow. Insight obtained through the resulting broad-based public participation formed the premises upon which most of the recommendations of this study are based. I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I I I I I I I I*~ ~Study Area Definition I I I I I I I I I I I U ~~~~~~~THE STUDY AREA I ~~The primary study area (see Map I on the f ollowing page) consists of the downtown area of Long Beach south of the LouisvilIle and Nashville Railroad, bounded on the east by I ~~South Burke Avenue, Fourth Street and Nicholson Avenue; on the west by Church Avenue, Magnolia Street and Russell Avenue; and on the south by the Mississippi Sound. I ~~While Long Beach has approximately four miles of waterfront beaches on the Mississippi Sound, for the purposes of this study, the area extending from Nicholson Avenue westward to I ~Russell Avenue was the waterfront area of primary consideration. It was felt by the Committee that this area was the most dynamic and economically viable portion of the waterfront area, and that recreational and commercial activity was likely to intensify in the area in coining years. Very little commercial activity exists along waterfront areas outside this designated study area, and I ~~recreational activity is generally low to moderate. In those primarily residential areas, it was felt by the Committee, that while some additional recreational use may I ~~be generated by initiating access improvements and amenities recommended in the Sand Beach Master Plan published in 1986 (see Appendix A), existing use patterns would remain largely unchanged in the near future. The delineated study area includes the traditional downtown commercial area which primarily consists of Jeff Davis I ~~Avenue and one block east and west of it, from the railroad to U.S. 90. Additional commercial and fringe residential areas between U.S. 90 and Fourth Street east and west of the abovementioned downtown area were also included in the study area. There is approximately one mile of waterfront within the I ~~study area, with Long Beach Harbor being the focal point of commercial and recreational activity. / /'//i ii ~T-7;7/ YWEST RALROAD STREET I . RO SRE _ I - - -, - - � � � - - - - - FTRST STRIS I ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1 1\ m PI NE STREE T I///( I/ Tu,4aSD STREET TKIRD ~FIST REETC LEFOURTH STREET - - - - - FIFTH STREET m- II- *~~~~~~~~~~~ I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~KERR 4- I I) 14CHAY go * ~~~~~~~MISSISSIPPI SOUND HcHA~9 *~j 2 --- STUDY AREA II OULE01ONAL PLANNNG COMMISSiON 12 SBUDY AREA----- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 I I I I I I I * Socio - Economic Data I I I I I I . . I I I I I I SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA Population Long Beach is a small but steadily growing city. Since 1930, the City's population has grown by nearly 1200%, a rate over four times that experienced by Harrison County as a whole. While much of the population growth was a result of annexation, particularly in 1981, Long Beach has consistently grown at a more rapid rate than the rest of the County. It is anticipated that the steady westward current of population growth in Harrison County will continue since there is considerably more available space for both residential and commercial development in the western portions of the County. Long Beach's proximity to the waterfront and to nearby commercial areas of its neighboring communities, in addition to the nearby Naval Construction Battalion Center and the Stennis Space Center will likely ensure that the City's population will continue to grow at a higher rate than the county as a whole. That growth has been and will be significantly nurtured by the City's attractive image as a small bedroom community with relatively good educational opportunities and low crime rates. Table 1 Population and Growth Rate for Long Beach and Harrison County from 1930 - 1990 Long Beach Growth Harrison County Growth Year Population Rate Population Rate 1930 1,346 N/A 44,143 N/A 1940 1,495 11.1% 50,799 15.1% 1950 2,703 80.8% 84,073 65.5% 1960 4,470 76.5% 119,489 42.1% 1970 6,170 29.4% 134,582 12.6% 1980 7,967 29.1% 157,665 17.2% 1990 *15,804 98.4% 165,365 4.9% Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, Census of the Population, Mississippi, 1930, 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990. *In 1981, Long Beach annexed a large area to its north, essentially tripling its incorporated land area and increasing its population by approximately 78.2% over the 1980 Census counts. With the annexation, Long Beach jumped from its rank as the 33rd largest city in the State to the 20th largest. Long Beach's adjusted population for 1980 was 14,199, including the annexed area. The actual population increase for the City's entire incorporated area from 1980 to 1990 was 11.3%. I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 The average household size in Long Beach in 1990 was 2.97 persons, a decrease of only .02 persons, while the averages for the State, Harrison County and all of Long Beach's sister communities were lowered far more substantially from their 1980 averages. This can be attributed largely to Long Beach's annexation of the North Long Beach area in 1981 which was relatively rural in nature. Rural areas of the State generally have larger average household sizes. Table 2 Average Household Size for Mississippi, Harrison County, Long Beach, Biloxi, Gulfport, Pass Christian and D'Iberville, 1980 and 1990 Average Household Size Governmental Unit 1980 1990 +/- Mississippi 2.97 2.75 -.22 Harrison County 2.85 2.65 -.20 Long Beach 2.81 2.97 -.02 Biloxi 2.67 2.50 -.17 Gulfport 2.60 2.45 -.15 Pass Christian 2.74 2.55 -.19 D'Iberville 3.23 2.88 -.35 Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, General Population Characteristics, 1980, and Summary Population and Housing Characteristics, Mississippi, 1990. The median age of Long Beach residents was 1.6 years older than that of Harrison County residents, but 4.7 years younger than that of neighboring Pass Christian. However, 29.2% of Long Beach's residents were under the age of 18 compared to 27.5% of Harrison County residents, indicating a proportionately higher school age population. Long Beach's 18-54 year old population, or primary "work force" age group, was of essentially the same proportion as that of Harrison County. Table 3 Age Distribution of Harrison County, Long Beach, Biloxi, Gulfport, Pass Christian and D'Iberville Residents, 1990 Governmental Unit Median Aae Under 18 18-54 55 & Older Harrison County 30.7 27.5% 53.3% 19.2% Long Beach 32.3 29.2% 53.2% 17.6% Biloxi 28.4 25.3% 55.4% 19.3% Gulfport 33.0 24.1% 51.2% 23.7% Pass Christian 37.0 25.1% 45.1% 29.8% D'Iberville 30.4 29.3% 54.5% 16.2% Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, Summary Population and Housing Characteristics, Mississippi, 1990. I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 Both Long Beach and Pass Christian had proportionately higher female populations than the county-wide average. That can be at least partially attributed to the fact that there are significantly higher military affiliated population concentrations, which are predominantly male, in the eastern portions of Harrison County, and that a proportionately higher number of working age males may leave Long Beach to find employment. Table 4 Population by Sex for Harrison County, Long Beach, Biloxi, Gulfport, Pass Christian and D'Iberville, 1990. Male Female Governmental Unit % of Population % of Population Harrison County 49.8% 50.2% Long Beach 48.4% 51.6% Biloxi 51.6% 48.4% Gulfport 49.0% 51.0% Pass Christian 46.8% 53.2% D'Iberville 50.1% 49.9% Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, Summary Population and Housing Characteristics, Mississippi, 1990. Long Beach has the lowest percentage of minorities of all the Mississippi coastal cities. Its 91.2% white population is 14% higher than that of Harrison County. From 1980 to 1990 the City's white population fell proportionately by 1.5%, mostly due to the slightly higher black percentage in the newly annexed area, and to the 1.3% proportional increase in other minorities (primarily Vietnamese) during that period. The City's relatively low minority population is, unfortunately, often a detriment toward securing Federal funds for community improvement programs and projects. Table 5 Population by Race for Harrison County, Long Beach, Biloxi, Gulfport, Pass Christian and D'Iberville, 1990. % White % Black % Other Governmental Unit 1980 1990 1980 1990 1980 1990 Harrison County 78.7 77.2 19.3 19.5 2.0 3.3 Long Beach 92.7 91.2 5.2 5.4 2.1 3.4 Biloxi 78.6 74.6 17.7 18.6 3.7 6.8 Gulfport 64.4 69.9 34.3 28.6 1.3 1.5 Pass Christian 63.8 63.6 34.3 30.8 1.9 5.6 D'Iberville 92.6 88.9 5.6 7.6 1.8 3.5 Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, General Population Characteristics, 1980, and Summary Population and Housing Characteristics, Mississippi, 1990. I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 Long Beach's 1990 population density of 1,564.8 persons per square mile is fairly normal among comparably sized cities in the State. That figure represents a drastic reduction from the City's 1980 population density of 2595.1 persons per square mile prior to the 1981 annexation. Table 6 Population Densities for Harrison County, Long Beach, Biloxi, Gulfport, Pass Christian and D'Iberville, 1980 and 1990. Governmental Unit Land Area (Sa. Miles) Persons/Sa. Mile Harrison County 581.0 284.6 Long Beach 10.1 1,564.8 Biloxi 19.6 2,363.2 Gulfport 22.6 1,804.2 Pass Christian 8.4 661.5 D'Iberville 4.7 1,397.0 Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, General Population Characteristics, 1980, and Summary Population and Housing Characteristics, Mississippi, 1990. Income Per capita income for Long Beach residents was the highest in the County in 1979, 14.5% higher than the County average. By 1985 that margin had grown to 15.5% even though the City's neighbors of Gulfport and Pass Christian had experienced proportionately higher increases during that period, with Pass Christian's per capita income edging slightly ahead. Table 7 Per Capita Income for Harrison County, Long Beach, Biloxi Gulfport, Pass Christian and D'Iberville, 1979 and 1985. Per Capita Income Governmental Unit 1979 1985 % Chanae Harrison County $5807 $8622 48.5 Long Beach 6649 9955 49.7 Biloxi 5687 8557 50.5 Gulfport 6456 9734 56.3 Pass Christian 6367 9995 57.0 D'Iberville N/A N/A N/A Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, County and City Data Book, 1988. 17 The median household income for Long Beach in 1979 was $15,634, 16.7% higher than that of Harrison County, and 29.2% higher than that of the State. Long Beach's median family income was the highest in the County, 14.1% higher than the average. Long Beach's 11% of households below poverty level is substantially lower than other cities in the County, being 20.9% lower than the County-wide rate and 41.2% below the State's rate. Table 8 Median Household Income and Percent Below Poverty Level for Harrison County, Long Beach, Biloxi, Gulfport, Pass Christian and D'Iberville, 1979. Governmental Median Household Median Family % Below Unit Income Income Poverty Level Harrison County $13,402 $15,712 13.9 Long Beach 15,634 17,925 11.0 Biloxi 12,226 14,400 16.1 Gulfport 12,715 14,977 17.1 Pass Christian 16,075 16,695 28.4 D'Iberville 15,148 15,987 13.5 Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, County and City Data Book, 1988. Employment The professional and related services sector and the retail trade sector were the predominant employment sectors for Long Beach in 1980, employing 25.9% and 18.9% respectively of the City's workers. The public administration and manufacturing sectors followed, providing employment for 9.8% and 9.4% of the City's work force respectively. Table 9, on the following page, illustrates the employment of City residents by employment sector and the projected average weekly salaries of persons employed in those sectors in the Mississippi coastal area. 18 Table 9 Percent of Working Residents in Long Beach, by Employment Sector, 1980, and Projected 1992 Salaries for the Mississippi Coastal Area which Correspond to the Sectors. EmDlovment Sector % Emplovment 1992 Salaries* Professional & Related Services 25.9 N/A Retail Trade 18.9 $ 222/week Public Administration 9.8 $ 325/week Manufacturing 9.4 $ 517/week Construction 7.2 $ 371/week Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 6.1 $ 379/week Communications/Public Utilities 5.1 $ 502/week Transportation 5.1 $ 502/week Personal, Entertainment and Recreation Services 4.3 $ 382/week Others 8.3 N/A Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census, General Social and Economic Characteristics, Mississippi, 1980; and, * Mississippi Employment Security Commission, Annual Planning Information for the Gulf Coast Service Delivery Area, 1992. According to Mississippi Employment Security Commission projections, between 1989 and 2000, the Mississippi coastal area should experience considerable increases in the professional and related services (17.5%) and the trade (17.7%) sectors, Long Beach's two largest sources of employment. However, the City's next two largest sectors of employment, public administration and manufacturing, are expected to show only modest increases (3.9% and 4.3% respectively) during that period. The following table illustrates projected employment increases by sector from 1989 - 2000. Table 10 Projected Employment Increases by Sector from 1989-2000 for the Mississippi Coastal Area. Employment Sector Proiected Increase Services 22.1% Trade (Wholesale and Retail) 17.7% Professional and Related Services 17.5% Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 14.9% Construction 12.7% Communication, Transportation and Public Utilities 12.5% Manufacturing 4.3% Government 3.9% Source: Mississippi Employment Security Commission, Annual Planning Information, Gulf Coast Service Delivery Area, 1992. 19 The three Mississippi coastal counties, particularly Harrison and Hancock, have faired relatively well compared to the State's unemployment average over the past 2 1/2 years or so. In September, 1991, all three counties were well below the State's unemployment rate of 8.0%. Table 11 depicts the unemployment rates for Harrison, Hancock and Jackson Counties for selected months from January, 1989 through September, 1991. Table 11 Unemployment Rates for Harrison, Hancock and Jackson Counties, January, 1989 - September, 1991. Unemployment Rate Month\Year Harrison Co. Hancock Co. Jackson Co. September, 1991 6.7% 6.4% 7.5% May, 1991 6.4% 6.4% 7.4% January, 1991 6.6% 6.8% 7.8% September, 1990 6.4% 7.2% 7.4% May, 1990 5.3% 4.7% 6.5% January, 1990 7.0% 5.1% 8.3% September, 1989 6.7% 5.4% 9.5% May, 1989 7.8% 7.3% 10.1% January, 1989 8.0% 7.7% 11.3% Source: Mississippi Employment Security Commission, Labor Market Data, February, 1989 - October, 1991. The high percentage of Long Beach workers whose places of employment were outside the city in 1980 (80.4%) illustrates the need for job creation within the City and validates the City's image as a "bedroom community". Table 12 illustrates the percentage of residents over the age of 16 who were working outside their area of residence in 1980 for Harrison County, and the individual cities within the County. Table 12 Percentage of Workers Aged 16 and Over Working Outside Area of Residence for Harrison County, Long Beach, Biloxi, Gulfport, Pass Christian and D'Iberville, 1980. Governmental Unit Percent Harrison County 41.8 Long Beach 80.4 Biloxi 64.1 Gulfport 32.9 Pass Christian 70.5 D'Iberville 95.9 Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, General Social and Economic Characteristics, Mississippi, 1980. 20 Retail Trade In fiscal year 1991, gross annual sales in Long Beach were nearly $5.3 million (7.3%) higher than in 1986, while the County's gross sales had fallen by nearly $63 million (4.4%). As can be seen in Tables 12 And 13, Long Beach's total annual gross sales had fluctuated moderately from 1986 through 1990, and then in 1991 increased dramatically by $11.3 million (17.1%). Annual gross automotive sales declined by nearly $1.7 million (19.8%) in the City, and by nearly $63 million (4.4%) in the County from 1986 to 1991. In 1991 machinery equipment and supplies sales were lower by over $39,000 (3.2%) in the City compared to their 1986 total, despite an annual increase of over 108% in 1990. Conversely, the County's total was nearly $11.1 million (30.4%) higher in 1991 than in 1986. Food and beverage sales were up by nearly $7.7 million (27.1%) in the City, with the bulk of that increase occurring in FY 1991. The County's gross annual food and beverage sales were over $54 million (17.1%) higher in 1991 than in 1986. Furniture and fixtures sales were down by over $4 million (63.8%) from their 1986 totals in Long Beach in 1991, and down by over $2 million (5.3%) in the County. However, both Long Beach and the County had increased sales in this industry group for both 1990 and 1991. Gross annual public utilities sales grew by nearly $2 million (54.5%) in the City, and by nearly $9.5 million (15.1%) in the County from 1986 to 1991. Apparel and general merchandise sales were over $3.8 million (47.7%) higher in Long Beach in 1991 than in 1986. Sales in this industry group have fluctuated wildly in the City in the past few years (40.7% in 1991, and +304.1% in 1991. Sales in the County for this industry group have experienced fairly steady moderate growth during those years, with the 1991 total over $20 million (10.8%) higher than that of 1986. Annual lumber and building materials sales had fallen by over $4.7 million (47.1%) in 1991 from the 1986 total in the City, and by nearly $27 million (25.7%) in the County. Miscellaneous retail sales, while showing a steady and moderate annual increase in the County, were over $440,000 (6.7%) lower in the City in 1991 than in 1986. Conversely, the County total was nearly $11.1 million higher in 1991 than in 1986. 21 Table 13 Total Annual Gross Sales in Harrison County, Long Beach, Biloxi, Gulfport, Pass Christian and D'Iberville, 1987-91. Harrison County Long Beach Amount % Change Year Amount % Change $1,380,021,296 -3.82 1987 $ 67,743,991 - 6.02 1,294,726,359 -6.18 1988 64,289,427 - 5.10 1,331,409,161 +2.83 1989 67,674,436 + 5.27 1,349,106,273 +1.33 1990 66,066,833 - 2.38 1,372,084,293 +1.70 1991 77,370,116 +17.11 Biloxi Gulfport Amount % Change Year Amount % Change $ 386,719,223 -6.78 1987 $419,460,347 - 5.04 375,989,159 -2.77 1988 373,290,298 -11.01 389,855,312 +3.69 1989 381,696,502 + 2.25 394,640,079 +1.23 1990 380,119,123 - 0.41 403,583,301 +2.27 1991 378,884,108 - 0.32 Pass Christian D'Iberville Amount % Change Year Amount % Change $ 16,611,539 -5.19 1987 $ N/A N/A 17,145,692 +3.22 1988 23,838,530* N/A 16,589,412 -3.24 1989 71,728,307 N/A 15,237,109 -8.15 1990 71,240,085 - 0.68 16,449,015 +7.95 1991 73,631,375 + 3.36 (* D'Iberville incorporated in 1988. This total does not represent an entire year.) Source: Mississippi State Tax Commission - Annual Report 1991, and Service Bulletins, 1986-1990. Tables 14 and 15, on the following two pages, depict the amount of change in gross sales from the previous year, by industry group, in Harrison County and in Long Beach for the years 1987-1991. 23 Table 14 Amount of Change in Gross Sales from Previous Year by Industry Group in Harrison County, 1987-1991. (In millions of dollars and percent) Industry Group 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 Total $ -54.9 -85.3 +36.7 +17.7 +23.0 % - 3.8 - 6.2 + 2.8 + 1.3 + 1.7 Automotive $ -31.0 -49.2 - 7.6 - 6.7 + 2.9 % -10.4 -18.2 - 3.4 - 3.1 + 1.4 Machinery, Equip. $ - 1.3 - .7 + 9.0 + .4 + 3.7 & Supplies % - 3.6 - 2.0 +26.0 + .9 + 8.5 Food & Beverages $ + 8.3 -28.4 +21.5 +24.5 +28.4 % + 2.6 - 8.7 + 7.2 + 7.6 + 8.2 Furniture $ - 2.5 - 2.4 - 1.7 + 3.0 + 1.5 & Fixtures % - 6.2 - 6.4 - 4.9 + 8.9 + 4.1 Public Utilities $ + 3.0 + 3.5 +35.2 -30.0 - 2.2 % + 4.8 + 5.3 +50.8 -28.7 - 2.9 Apparel & Gen. $ - 4.4 + 5.7 + 5.4 + 8.9 + 4.4 Merchandise % - 2.4 + 3.2 + 2.9 + 4.6 + 2.2 Lumber & Building $ -19.0 - 4.5 - 5.6 + 4.6 - 2.5 Materials % -18.1 - 5.3 - 6.9 + 6.1 - 3.0 Misc. Retail $ + .4 - .9 - 1.8 + 7.7 + 3.2 % + .4 - 1.0 - 2.0 + 8.4 + 3.3 Misc. Services $ -10.4 + 1.2 + 2.1 + 5.8 + 2.4 % -13.5 + 1.9[B + 3.1 + 8.3 + 3.3 Wholesale $ -11.1 -19.9 + 4.6 + 2.8 + 2.8 % -13.0 -26.9 + 8.6 + 4.8 + 4.5 Contracting $ +11.9 + 7.8 -25.3 - 2.0 -21.2 % + .9 + 5.6 -17.1 - 1.6 -17.6 Recreation $ + 1.7 + .6 + .4 + .8 - .6 & Amusement % +45.3 +11.0 + 7.3 +11.8 - 8.2 Total Retail $ -43.8 -65.4 +32.0 +14.9 +20.2 % - 3.3 - 5.0 + 2.6 + 1.2 + 1.6 Source: Mississippi State Tax Commission - Annual Report 1991, and Service Bulletins 1986-1990. 24 Table 15 Amount of Change in Gross Sales from Previous Year, by Industry Group in Long Beach, 1987-1991. (In millions of dollars and percent) Industry GrouD _ 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 Total $ - 4.0 - 3.5 + 3.4 - 1.6 + 11.3 % - 6.0 - 5.1 + 5.3 - 2.4 + 17.1 Automotive $ - 1.6 - .5 + .5 + .6 - .6 % -19.0 - 7.7 + 7.6 + 8.3 - 7.9 Machinery, Equip. $ - .4 - .3 + .1 + .7 - .2 & Supplies % -29.9 -36.8 +23.8 +108.1 - 15.2 Food & Beverages $ + 1.0 - .04 - .4 + 1.8 + 5.4 % + 3.5 - 1.5 - 1.5 + 6.3 + 17.5 Furniture $ - .2 + .1 - .4 + .05+ .03 & FiXtures % -22.7 +18.1 -72.7 + 30.3 + 11.7 Public Utilities $ + .7 + .4 + 3.3 - 2.5 + .02 % +20.5 +10.2 +69.1 - 31.4 + 3.0 Apparel & Gen. $ - 1.8 - .8 - .5 - 2.0 + 9.0 Merchandise % -22.1 -13.6 8.4 - 40.7 +304.1 Lumber & Building $ - 2.1 - 2.0 + .7 + .2 - 1.5 Materials % -21.4 -25.0 +12.6 + 2.4 - 22.2 Misc. Retail $ + .1 + .2 - .3 + .4 - .8 % + 1.4 + 2.7 - 5.0 + 6.6 - 11.4 Misc. Services $ - .2 + .1 + .02 - .5 + .2 % - 6.5 + 3.5 + .5 - 15.4 + 7.2 Wholesale $ -- -- -- -- -- Contracting $ + .1 - .6 + .4 - .4 - .2 % + 5.5 -27.0 +26.0 - 20.2 - 11.1 Recreation $ -- -- -- -- -- & Amusement % -- -- -- -- -- Total Retail $ - .4 - 3.5 + 3.4 - 1.6 + 11.3 % - 6.0 - 5.1 + 5.3 - 2.4 + 17.1 Source: Mississippi State Tax Commission - Annual Report 1991, and Service Bulletins 1986-190. 25 U ~~The following two tables, Tables 16 and 17, depict the major manufacturers located in Long Beach and Harrison County respectively, along with their total number of employees. Table 16 Major Long Beach Manufacturers Number of Company Product Employees I ~~Regina Corporation Vacuum Cleaners, 700 Electric Brooms Stuffed Shirt, Inc. Ladies Apparel 160 I ~~Gulf Coast Apparel Ladies' and Men's 130 Apparel Corp. American Commercial Hotel & Restaurant 92 * ~~China China Planning Systems, Inc. Electronic Hardware 22 Dolphin Press, Inc. Lithographic Printing 21 High Speed Copy Center Offset Printing 18 I ~~Customahufacturing Rubber Products 12 TAC Tape Co. Pressure Sensitive 8 * ~~~~~~~~~Tape Source: Harrison County Development Commission - Harrison County Manufacturing Directory, 1991. Table 17 I ~~~~Other Major Harrison County Manufacturers Number of I ~~Company Product Employees E.I. DuPont DeNemours Titanium Dioxide 700 & Company Avondale Industries Fiberglass marine 380 Vessels Avondale Gulfport Marine Marine Products, 280 I ~~~~~~~~~Hovercraft Pass Christian Industries Women's Apparel 275 Maybelle Dress Mfg. Co. Women's Apparel 270 I ~~Gulf Publishing Co. Newspapers 262 Trinity Marine - Gulfport Container Cranes, 240 Barges, etc. Colonial Baking Co. Bread & Rolls 228 Indal Aluminum Gulfport Aluminum Extrusions 210 .& Billets Struthers Industries Heat Exchangers, Pre- 200 ssure Vessels, etc. 26 Table 17 Other Major Harrison County Manufacturers (Continued) Number of Company Product Employees Biloxi Pre-Stress Prestressed Concrete 180 Concrete Products Trinity Marine Group Shipbuilding & 164 Repair Goldin Industries Metal Salvage, Wood 156 Trusses, Metal Products Swingster Co. Baseball Caps 155 C. F. Gollott & Son Seafood 125 Seafood Teledyne Irby Steel Pressure Vessels, 120 Pipe, etc. Redman'Homes Mobile Homes 113 Fleck, Inc. Automotive Wiring 110 Harness McDermott Inc. Heavy Steel Fabri- 107 cation (Marine) Turnbull Metal Products Marine Furnishings 103 R. A. Fayard Co. Frozen Shrimp 100 Royal Maid Coat Liners 95 Sterling Drug Phamaceuticals 93 & Baby Powder Allied Enterprises of Fishing Lures, 92 Gulfport Flounder Lights, etc Del's Seaway Shrimp Shrimp & Oysters 90 & Oyster Co. Hartson-Kennedy Cabinet Countertops 84 Top Co. Coast Coca-Cola Soft Drinks 83 Bottling Co. Heinz Pet Products Cat Food 79 Arizona Chemical Co. Hydrocarbon Resins 73 LaValley Construction Co. Fiberglass Containers 63 & Parts David Hall Seafood Shrimp 60 Golden Gulf Coast Packing Frozen Shrimp 50 Gulf Pride Enterprises Frozen Shrimp 50 R. Fournier & Sons Seafood 50 Source: Harrison County Development Commission - Harrison County Manufacturing Directory, 1991. 27 I I I I I I I I Land Use and Zoning I I I I I I I I I I I LAND USE AND ZONING Land use The study area consists of approximately 192 acres of Long Beach's urban waterfront area, including beaches and the land area of the harbor. For the purposes of this study, land use has been divided into six categories: commercial; government\civic; church property; single-family I ~~residential; multi-family residential; and, undeveloped property. Approximately 46 acres, just over 29% of the study area north of US 90, is occupied by commercial enterprises (see Map 2 and Table 18). This land use category consists of a variety of retail establishments, professional offices, I ~~restaurants and lounges. The vast majority of commercial acreage is located along and adjacent to US 90 and Jeff Davis Avenue, but commercial uses (especially professional I ~~offices) are gradually creeping into neighboring residential areas. There is currently a considerable amount of area available I ~~for additional commercial use, particularly in existing vacant or partially vacant buildings along both US 90 and Jeff Davis Avenue. There are two large vacant buildings at I ~the intersection of those two streets which could accommodate a variety of commercial activity. There also is considerable vacant space available in the Oak Harbor shopping center on Us 90. Additionally, there are several vacancies in buildings along Jeff Davis Avenue which could accmmdae shops and offices. Whie tereareapproximately 35 acres in the study area south of US 90, only six or seven of those are commercially usable, all along the north end of the harbor. of that I ~~acreage, only approximately two acres remain available for development, with over half of the developable space currently occupied by the Chimneys Restaurant, TL's Harbor Shop, C J's Waterfront Landing, the Long Beach Yacht Club and the Chamber of Commerce. The remaining acreage south of US 90 primarily consists of beaches and public parking * ~~areas. Governmental and civic uses account for nearly eight acres, or just over 5% of the area north of US 90. Included in this category are City Hall, McCaughan Elementary School, 29 U ~~Long Beach Library, the Masonic Building, the Long Beach Garden Club, a municipal fire station, and the City Park on Church Street. South of US 90, within the study area, the Chamber of Commerce and the Harbormaster account for less than one acre of usage between them. * ~Church property within the study area consists of approximately 6.3 acres, or 4% of the area north of US 90. Most of the property in this use category is owned by the First Baptist Church of Long Beach, and is along Fifth Street between Jeff Davis and Mason Avenues. The Long Beach Presbyterian Church property at the corner of Second Street * ~~and Burke Avenue is also included. Multi-family residential properties account for just under seven acres of land use in the study area, all north of US 90. This use represents approximately 4.2% of the study area north of the highway, and includes the Longue Vue Condominiums, Patio Apartments and a small condominium complex between Kerr and Fifth Streets. Just over 54 acres, or nearly 35% of the study area north of the highway, is used for single-family residences. With the I ~~exception of a few parcels near the extreme east end of the study area, and a fairly large parcel at the west end of the area, single family dwellings within the study area are not located along either of the primary commercial thoroughfares. Most of the single-family residences are located inland and north of Fifth Street, and generally * ~~along the fringes of the study area. Within the study area north of the highway, there are approximately 13 acres of undeveloped property, just over 8% I ~~of the total area. Nearly all of that property is inland, and very little is immediately adjacent to the primary commercial areas. I ~~Table 18, on the following page, depicts existing land use acreages by use category within the primary Study Area. In computing acreages as a percentage of the total, the Study I ~~Area was split into two distinct areas - north of US 90, and south of US 90. 30 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - - --- --- F RST STREET I' _ I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o 000 \ a , __ 00 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 o%0 0 0o~~\\ ..liL1.2!~' ~ I SREET \ \\ STREET F i - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~THIRD 000STREET I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ C ' 0 000 00000o ,0oo 00 00 000 00 00 0000 C, 0 0 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~00 0000 0 _____________________~~~~~ 000 000000 - -.-------- oo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .. .......... 0 0 0 0 00 0 000 KR 0 00~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~? .. 2 D' 0 0 a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i EXSTN LAND USE I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0,0....0..1 00 DA~~~~~~~~~ - - ,LC DMOERS I~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 0 0a0 0 q- ......~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SNL F..... ,O0Y GULF~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ HE0OA PLNNN COMS O 0EE'E 0RPEfl3 Table 18 Existing Land Use Acreage by Use Category within the Study Area. North of US 90 Use Cateaorv Acreage % of Total Commercial 46.1 29.4 Governmental & Civic 7.8 5.0 Church 6.3 4.0 Multi-family Residential 6.6 4.2 Single-family Residential 54.2 34.5 Undeveloped 13.0 8.3 Other (streets, etc.) 23.0 14.6 Total 157.0 100.0 South of US 90 * Commercial 4.4 12.6 Governmental & Civic .4 1.1 Undeveloped 2.2 6.3 Other (beaches, parking, streets, etc.) 28.0 80.0 Total 35.0 100.0 *Acreages for uses south of US 90 are roughly estimated. Zoning Summary The study area north of US 90 is all zoned either R-l, Single-family residential; R-2, Medium density residential; R-O, Residential Office; C-l, Commercial\Central Business District; or, C-2, Highway Commercial District (see Map 3). While the R-l, single-family residential district zoning is the most restrictive for development among the districts, requiring a minimum of 75' by 100' lots with a maximum of 45% coverage, relatively little of the area (approximately 15%) is zoned R-1. The areas that are zoned R-l are located along the outer fringe of the study area, and, with the possible exception of a few parcels along US 90 at the east end of the study area, offer little potential for commercial use and are best suited for their current residential use at this time. As has been common in many traditionally residential areas located along the fringes of downtown areas, numerous residences are being purchased and renovated for professional offices. While professional offices can be an integral part of a viable downtown area, the importance to an economically viable downtown commercial area of having nearby resident population is often overlooked. Convenient accessibility for potential patrons involves more than merely widening roads and creating ample parking, particularly for downtown areas, it begins with the convenient proximity of a resident population. 3 9 Only approximately 5% of the study area north of the highway is zoned R-2 for medium density residential use. This I ~~zoning district allows single family residential, duplexes on on a minimum 75' by 100' lot, and low rise apartments or condominiums with density requirements of 4000 square feet of lot area per unit. The small area zoned R-2 is located along Russell Avenue and Magnolia Street, near the western extremity of the study area, and not in the immediate * ~~vicinity of commercial activity. The R-O Residential Office District was created to accommodate the previously mentioned trend of purchasing and I ~~renovating residences for use primarily as professional offices. Property zoned R-0 consists of only about 5% of the study area north of the highway. Currently the only professional office within the portion of the study area zoned R-0 is Dr. Kitchings' office with the rest of the area being used as single family residential. I ~~Approximately 50% of the study area north of US 90 is zoned C-1, Central Business District. This area consists of the downtown core, essentially Jeff Davis Avenue and one block I ~~to either side of it from the highway to First Street. The C-1 Zone allows for a wide variety of commercial activities commonly associated with traditional downtown areas. The use requirements of this zone are generally conducive orderly growth and compatibility among businesses in the area, and are not too restrictive. I ~~Some 50 businesses are located within this district, of which 35 are directly on Jeff Davis Avenue. Over half of the businesses along Jeff Davis Avenue have been in business less than five years, indicating a high turnover-rate in the area. In fact, nine of those businesses have been open for less than one year and only five businesses have been there * ~~~for over 20 years. Of the study area north of US 90, approximately 25% is zoned C-2, Highway Commercial. The C-2 District is the least I ~~~restrictive of the commercial zoning districts. It allows most commercial uses and is generally along the major traffic routes. The specific areas within the study area which are zoned C-2 are primarily along the north side of US 90, and adjacent to the C-1 District on both the east and I ~~There are currently 20 businesses operating within the C-2 District. Most of the businesses in the C-2 District are new to the area and have located along the rapidly I ~~developing commercial strip along US 90. only three of the businesses in the C-2 District have been in continuous operation for over five years. The area south of US 90 consists of sand beaches and the Long Beach Harbor area. There is no zoning for either of I ~~these areas. The sand beach areas of Long Beach, as are all such areas in Harrison County, are public lands administered by the County through the Harrison County Sand Beach Authority. To date, the City has not chosen to extend zoning to the harbor area. In general, current zoning within the study area seems appropriate to accommodate the types of new businesses and expansion of existing businesses needed for economic growth in the area. The City may wish to consider establishing a I ~~special zoning district for the Harbor to set some specific guidelines for future development in that area. I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3 /1 /i~~~~I ~~~I/~~I/ /~~~~~/ / ~~WEST R~AILROADSTEET RALROAD STR EET m P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~INET STREET I PINE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A STREE, I CAJ(~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~VR S-TREET FOUR~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~TRE7MET I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~FFT I NIGN~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~00WAY * ~~~~~~~MISSISSIPPI SOUND ZONING R -0 RIESIDENTIAL./OVFFEE DfSTMCT DISTRICT KGHWAY COt&EWWI. GULF REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION DISTRICT I I I I I I I I Traffic and Parking I I I I l l I I I I I I I f TRAFFIC AND PARKING SUMMARY Traffic Summnary Easy, convenient and safe movement of traffic into and out of the study area should be the prime goal of traf fic and I ~~~transportation planning. Generally, street right-of-ways occupy over 75 percent of any developed urban area, and often more in downtown business areas such as this. Parking also typically occupies a considerable amount of land area. Traffic and parking are two aspects critical to the success of any proposed or existing development regardless of the * ~~~nature or type of that development. With the present reconstruction of U.S. Highway 90 underway, traffic in Long Beach can be considered anything but normal. I ~~Motorists are experiencing some congestion and periodic delays, but nothing very excessive. As can be seen in Table 19, on the following page, U.S. Highway 90 far and I ~~away carries the heaviest average daily traffic (ADT) of the streets within the study area. Jeff Davis Avenue and Cleveland Avenue are the two busiest north-south streets, stemming from the fact that both offer direct access between East Railroad Street and U.S. 90. Both streets have signal lights at U.S. 90 which permit safer turning movements at those intersections, and at the north end, both have four- way stops at their intersections with East Railroad Street. With the exception of U.S. 90, east-west movement within the study area is not such that any of the east-west streets are anywhere nearing their capacity to handle the existing traffic. The one-way couple of Third Street and Fourth Street between Jeff Davis Avenue and Burke Avenue, operating during morning and evening school hours, does have a tendency to slow traffic somewhat. This could be confusing to unsuspecting motorists as it is in operation only during I ~~~specific times each day to correspond to morning arrival and afternoon departure of children attending McCaughan Elementary School. Otherwise, with the system of four-way I ~~stops strategically placed, the traffic in the study area generally moves fairly well. As development in the study area increases, or redevelopment to more intense commercial activities occurs, it can be expected that there will also be a corresponding increase in traffic attracted by these activities. When this occurs the City will have to examine the existing roadway conditions and capacities and devise programs to upgrade streets and traffic control devises to increase capacity for moving traffic. The City may also explore improving streets outside the study area that would offer motorists, not destined to the area, an alternate, more convenient route to * ~~~their destination. -37 The following table lists the average daily traffic counts for selected study area streets. These counts were taken by the Gulf Regional Planning Commission in December, 1991, with the exception of the US 90 count, which was provided by the Mississippi State Highway Department in 1990. I ~~~~~~~~~Table 19 Average Daily Traffic on Selected Study Area Streets, 1991. I ~~~Location Averaae Daily Traffic West Third Street 677 East Third Street 885 West Fourth Street 1433 East Fourth Street 1016 Jeff Davis Avenue 15120 (Between Third & Fourth Streets) Burke Avenue 1165 I ~~~(Between Second & Third Streets) Burke Avenue 2522 I ~~~(Between Fifth Street & U.S. 90) Cleveland Avenue 4920 * ~~~(Between Third & Fourth Streets) Cleveland Avenue 6047 * ~~~(Between Fifth & Kerr Streets) Long Beach Harbor Entrance 2172 I ~~~us 90 * (East of Nicholson Avenue) 21900 * 1990 Average daily total. Sources: GRPC traffic counts, 1991; and, Mississippi State Highway Department, 1990. / ///// /i / /E~ rTE7 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 77 / EST RAILROAD STE LAST -RA.RDAr STREET FIRST STREET II~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\ I PINE STREET STREET SECOND SREET OA( STREET 1 III FOURTH STRM ~ - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- 677 15120 STREE 885\ ~ ~\ \\i~ FlrrM STREET II _ _ I ~~2522 P Y~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ERR P II ~ 9 HKWWAY go 0 gGKWWA 90 2 0Li2172 MISSISSIPPI SOUND AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC COUNTS 1991 1 H GULF REGIONAL PLANNING7 CQOM-MISSION 39 I ~~~~~~~~Parking summary Parking does not appear to be a major problem at the present time. There seems to be an ample supply of parking spaces within the area for present demand. The problem, as perceived by some merchants and residents, is that the parking spaces are not always conveniently located. Some I ~~businesses, such as the Hancock Bank, may occasionally generate more demand than existing parking spaces in the immediate area can accommodate. This can cause congestion I ~~and become a hazard to traffic. Where this occurs, it may be advisable for the City and the business to collaboratively seek solutions, which may include additional of f street parking on interior vacant lots behind existing buildings. There is ample space for parking in the downtown area, perhaps not directly in front of or adjacent to a particular business, but generally within a short walk of any of the area's businesses. However, existing parking spaces and areas need to be clearly identified and marked to ensure efficient utilization of available parking space. A windshield survey of available and potential parking in the downtown area identified 125 on-street parking spaces along Jeff Davis Avenue, with another 200+ on-street spaces within less than half a block of that street. Many of these I ~~spaces are not marked or identified as parking spaces, but the potential is there. Additionally, over 500 existing or potential off-street spaces were identified oh parcels along Jeff Davis Avenue, including the over 250 spaces available at the K&B shopping center and the old National Food Store lot. Although many of these spaces are not generally available to the public, area businesses and property owners I ~~should work together to designate as many as possible for public parking, and properly identify and mark them for easy * ~~~recognition by shoppers. The waterfront commercial area north of the harbor has ample parking facilities for the foreseeable future. Well over 500 off-street parking spaces are available to shoppers in the Harbor Oaks Shopping Center, and other businesses in that area appear to have ample parking as well, either on- * ~~~or off-street. With the recent parking development in the harbor area, there seems to be ample parking to meet the areas needs for some time to come, unless some major development occurs (possibly as a result of dockside gaming ventures). With 40 I ~~the completion of the proposed beach/harbor access project at Jeff Davis Avenue, another 350-400 parking spaces would be added to the over 550 spaces existing within the harbor I ~~area. Additionally, there are other areas in the harbor area that could be improved to accommodate more parking, but considering the finite quantity of developable space within the area, careful consideration should be given before dedicating -more of the harbor area to parking. Existing and potential parking areas as identified in the I ~~windshield survey are depicted on Map 5 on the following page. IS */ I! I I I ) i /I srwr Iatf;~, / I wl ~ c~U1 o I I _____ '1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,/i/ 2~~~~~~~50 Spaces __ 16J''--~ ~' = 25 Spaces .' (~) 96~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Spaces LL.' ' Iii 1' , -Am\ \ \ \X \ \isting & Potential *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ zs nr~~~~~c! ~~~~- nrrrr ~~~~Parking Areas (r~ '~ -- - - 6 pc II!'t I g2,,I \i \\!\ \ \I I I! O~~~~L tl ( 25 Spaces * I250 Spaces * ~i'III *\ ~\\\ l~ i i i H-\ \j � l5Spaces \\ ~\~\ 1 '-- @0Sae -No * 16 Spaces 215 Spaces 1296 Spaces ~~~aan O 15 t ~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 160 Spaces ~~~~~~~~~~~~~L--~. -Q *7 20 Spaces 15 Spaces 130 Spaces MISSSIO *20 45 Spaces *11 15 Spaces *12 24 Spaces r O 0.~~~~~~~~U 500 Spaces I~~~~~~~ 57 Spaces d In 21 Spaces I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~109 Spaces Is~~~~*23 400 Spaces 180Existing Space MISSISSIPPI SOUND -~ - d *20 75 Spaces I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~50 Spaces \u ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~17 Snaces i t ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*23 400 Spaces I O ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Existing Snace Ir\\~.~ ~~~~~~~~~~~PARj~~~~~~~KING * ~Potential Space ON-STREET PARKING II~ -i~'~~~� (Designated in quantities, by street area, by numbers LIE wlu c U11~--al~ I-,02-B i/Aa~~~l Hwritten in streets.) I3) Ic , I~il iNqJ ~ (Includes paved, unpaved, marked and unmarked space VFA7 T - (DFW T) V IAk R Awhich could be made avail- able for parking.) OULF " O~CNAL -'1JNN1NC, CC'NiM IS -S N 42 I I I I I I I I|~ ~Issues and Concerns I I I I I I I I I I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I I I I I I I * ~~~~~~~~IS SUES AND CONCERNS During the course of several Advisory Committee meetings, several issues and concerns repeatedly surfaced as topics of I ~~discussion. Interestingly, most of those issues were also mentioned by merchants and\or residents of the City in the opinion surveys which were conducted. I ~~The following listing represents the basic issues facing the City of Long Beach as identified during the course of this * ~~~study. Figure 1. Issues and Concerns Facing the City of Long Beach as Identified by the Long Beach Urban Waterfront Advisory * ~~~Committee. 1. The downtown area is decaying, and steps must be take to improve the area's image. Buildings in which I ~~~~merchants are located have deteriorated and need to be rennovated to create a more appealing shopping atmosphere. 2. The are no incentives for either new businesses to locate or for existing businesses to expand in the downtown area. 3. Inconsistent land use is a hindrance to optimum I ~~~~commercial development in the downtown area. 4. Streets and sidewalks are not adequately maintained to encourage shopping activity in the downtown area. I ~~~5. The existing mixture of downtown merchants does not offer a diverse enough array of goods and services to attract residents to the area. 6. Wind damage insurance rates for urban waterfront area businesses are high, and often inaccessible. 7. Long Beach residents do not sufficiently support Long Beach merchants. I ~~~8. The waterfront commercial area is the most dynamic commercial area in the City, and development must be carefully guided to insure optimum use and protection I ~~~~~of the area. 9. Growth and development in the waterfront area particularly south of US 90, is limited by elevation, environmental and legal restrictions. 10. Access to the Long Beach Harbor and surrounding beach areas is inadequate, particularly from the downtown area via Jeff Davis Avenue. I ~~~11. There are vacant buildings in prime commercial locations within the urban waterfront area which are capable of accommodating a variety of business I ~~~~enterprises. Suitable merchant tenants must be sought for these locations. 44 I ~~~12. Long Beach does not currently get its share of the County,'s tourism industry. The City needs to cultivate attractions which will increase tourist * ~~~~~activity. 13. Transportation access to the City is inadequate, particularly from the north. Access to the City from I-10 is indirect, and along two-laned roads which are generally poorly maintained with poor signage. Public transit to the City is very limited, and primarily serves only the beach area. I ~~~14. Sales tax revenues generated in the City are relatively low, and ad valorem taxes are high. 15. Many Long Beach residents must leave the City to find I ~~~~~suitable employment. 16. There is property available for development in the Long Beach Industrial Park for which suitable industries should be sought. 17. It is of the utmost importance that the quality of life of Long Beach residents be protected and enhanced. I ~~~18. While citing high taxes, the need for job creation, and the need for improving municipal services and infrastructure, some residents do not want additional businesses or industry in the City. 19. If dockside gambling is legalized in Harrison County, there is considerable potential for the location of such activity in the Long Beach Harbor. Should that I ~~~~occur, the area is likely to experience unprecedented growth. If dockside gambling is not approved in Harrison County, there will still be the possibility I ~~~~that the City could experience increased tourist traffic from the casinos slated to be developed in Hancock County in the near future. I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 I I I I I I I I ~~~~Assets and Constraints I I I I I I I I I I I I ASSETS AND CONSTRAINTS Through the group discussions of the Advisory Committee and the comments of merchants and residents, several of the City's attributes which enhance the quality of life of its residents as well as the City's potential for growth and development were identified. The following listing represents those attributes, or assets. I ~~~Figure 2. Assets of the City of Long Beach as Identified by the Long Beach Urban Waterfront Advisory committee. * ~~~1. The City borders the Mississippi Sound and has beautiful sand beaches extending along its entire south side. The beaches provide extensive recreational opportunities for residents and tourists. 2. The City has a public harbor which provides access to the waters of the Mississippi Sound and the Gulf of Mexico for recreational and commercial activities. The harbor also has great potential for further development for both recreational and tourism-related commercial activity. 3. The City is blessed with a relatively warm sub- tropical climate which is very appealing to many northern tourists. 4. The City has a viable waterfront commercial area along I ~~~~US 90, which has great potential for continued growth. 5. The City has one of the most highly acclaimed public school systems in the State. Educational I ~~~~opportunities are further enhanced by the presence of the University of Southern Mississippi, Gulf Park Campus in Long Beach, and the Gulf ,Coast Community College in nearby Gulfport. 6. The City's has a relatively low crime rate. 7. The City has one of the lowest poverty rates in the State. I 8~~~. The City has an intimate, small town atmosphere which fosters a strong sense of community among residents. 9. The City has an industrial park which has some major I ~~~~centers of employment within it, and has available space to accommodate expansion of existing industries as well as the development of additional industrial * ~~~~ventures. In the Committee's open discussions, in addition to identifying some of the City's major assets, several I ~~negative factors which are likely to hinder growth in the city were identified. These negative factors, or constraints are listed in Figure 3, on the following page. 47 I ~~~Figure 3. Constraints to Growt h and Development in the City of Long Beach as Identified by the Long Beach Urban * ~~~Waterfront Advisory Committee. 1. The run-down appearance of the downtown area is not conducive to shopping activity. 2. Street and sidewalks in the downtown area are not adequately maintained to encourage shopping activity. 3. There are no public amenities such as restrooms, water fountains, beaches, waste cans, etc. to accommodate I ~~~~~shoppers. 4. Downtown merchants do not offer a wide enough variety of goods and services to draw residents into the area * ~~~~~to shop. 5. The survival rate of downtown businesses is not good. 6. There is little or no cooperation between downtown and waterfront businesses to improve the business climate I ~~~~of the area. 7. Long Beach residents do not adequately support City businesses. I 8~~~. High ad valorem taxes are a deterrent to both the expansion of existing businesses, and the location of new businesses in the urban waterfront area. * ~~~9. High wind damage insurance rates are an additional burden to area businesses. 10. Waterfront development, particularly in the harbor area, is limited by flood elevation and environmental I ~~~~restrictions. 11. Vacant commercial buildings at the intersection of US 90 and Jeff Davis Avenue do not project the image of a viable commercial area to motorists at the primary 12. There is inadequate access to the harbor and surrounding beach areas, particularly from the downtown area via Jeff Davis Avenue. 13. Transportation access to the City is inadequate, particularly from the north. Access from 1-10 is I ~~~~inconvenient, following generally poorly maintained and signed two-laned roads. 14. Public transit to and in the City is very limited, and I ~~~~mainly confined to the waterfront area. Fixed-route transit service consists of a Coast Area Transit trolley route along US 90 which only runs a limited schedule on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. 15. The City has not been able to attract enough business and\or industry to provide employment for most of its residents, causing many residents to have to commute I ~~~~to other nearby communities to work. A considerable number of the City's young people are moving from the City to find suitable employment. .48 I I I I I I I I Opinion Surveys I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I I III I I I I I I I I ~~~~~~~~OPINION SURVEYS To obtain insight f rom Long Beach merchants and residents I ~~~regarding their opinions of existing conditions in the urban waterf ront area of their City, and to acquire their ideas pertaining to improving the area, two surveys were undertaken. First, a merchant survey was initiated in which all merchants in the study area were interviewed and asked to respond to the survey questions. A resident survey was then undertaken in which residents were interviewed in their I ~~~homes and at local grocery stores, banks, beauty shops and other businesses to acquire their perspectives regarding existing and potential conditions in the downtown and I ~~~waterfront areas of the City. Merchant Survey I ~~~The survey f orm used in the merchant survey (see merchant survey form in Appendix C) was developed to obtain information and opinions from the urban waterfront area I ~~merchants, both for the purposes of this study, and to provide the types of information commonly sought by the Mississippi Mainstreet Program for downtown areas. I ~~A total of 71 merchants were identified within the study area. Each merchant was personally contacted by either GRPC staff or Advisory Committee members, and 60 of the 71 merchants answered the survey questions. Summnary of Survey Findings The types of businesses found in the study area included: - restaurants (7) - motels I ~~~~- beauty shops (5) - discount stores - medical offices (5) - drug stores - antique shops (4) - liquor store U ~~~~- banks (4) - stationery - gift shops (3) - pet store - auto repair (3) - sign shop - florist (2) - oil exploration - insurance agencies (2) - department store - attorneys' offices (2) - grocery store - gas stations (2) - beauty supplies I ~~~~- fast food restaurants (2) - boat sales/storage - lounges (2) - hobby shop - women's apparel (2) - tackle shop I ~~~~- offset printing - charter boats - pawn shop - auto parts - pool parlor - floor covering - oriental foods - barber shop - hardware - accounting - furniture - pet grooming *~~~~ -cleaners - art gallery 50 Map 6, on the following page, is a directory depicting the location of businesses within the study area. The numerical I ~~~representations of the businesses on the map correspond with the listing in Figure 4 on the page immediately following the map. //// WEST RAILROADJ SR EAST RAILROAD STREET7 FIRST STREET / /i/,/,/i // ROAKI STREET I I iT - - - - -- - ---- li~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W~~~~i HF i_ \\\\h? n \\ \ IIH - STREET I O0 e o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- I Pl I~~~~~I II e RGHWAY 90 Cf RGl W7y MISSISSIPPI SOUND BUSINESS DIRECTORY I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\ GULF REGIONAL PL ANN1\1 INJ G COMMISSION Numbers Correspond To The List GULF REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION On The Following Page 52 Figure 4. Urban Waterfront Area Business Listing. (Map numbers refer to Map 6 on the previous page.) Map # Business Map# Business 1 Dr. Kitchings, M.D. 37 Van's Oriental Food 2 Cleveland Chiropractic 38 One-Stop Auto Parts Avon Automasters Auto Repair 3 La Place De La Mer Condos 39 Corner Pocket 4 California Concepts Hair Professional Flooring 5 MS School of Massage Hitching Post Rest. Wellness Therapies Ctr. 40 Long Beach City Park 6 Indy's 41 K-Mart 7 Norm's Hobbies\Raceway 42 Fantastic Sam's Bussler International Sav-A-Center 8 Barnaby's Restaurant 43 Fast Lane The Depression Shop 44 Dr. Rayner Dr. Cohen Foot Specialist 45 Hair Effects Amelia's Restaurant 46 Merchants Bank 9 Gulf Coast Yacht Brokerage 47 Riemann's Funeral Home 10 Long Beach Garden Club 48 Long Beach Chevron 11 Emerald Coast Youth Center 49 May Wah Restaurant 12 Tootsie's Beauty Shop 50 Long Beach Car Wash 13 Hancock Bank 51 Patio Apartments 14 Randy Hart Insurance 52 Jeff Davis Auto Sales 15 Ace Hardware 53 Heritage House Gifts Frank McCreary III, Atty. 54 Fire Station Fisher Karate Institute 55 Arrangements By Bobbie 16 Gedde's Geophysical 56 Treasure Chest Antiques 17 Presbyterian Church 57 Nationwide Insurance 18 Oyd W. Davis Accounting Jo Ann's Salon 19 Long Beach City Hall Clothes Out II City Hall Annex Quality Home Health 20 Long Beach Public Library 58 Dollar General 21 Dr. M.L. Niolet, Dentist K & B Drug Store 22 Faye Spayde, Atty. 59 Oasis Package Store 23 McCaughan Elementary School 60 Magnolia Federal Bank 24 Doll Grabbag Antiques 61 First Baptist Church 25 Happy Pets 62 Tropical Paradise Rest. Jake's Signs & Designs 63 Lighthouse Lounge The Letter Limb 64 Longue Vue Condos 26 BJ's Puzzles 65 Long Beach Resort Inn 27 People's Bank 66 Candlelight Gallery 28 Long Beach Pawn Shop 67 Dorcester Personal Care 29 Animal House 68 Coast Women's Health Artworks Portraits 69 O'Neal's Restaurant 30 Long Beach Cleaners 70 Fabian's Ocean Gifts 31 High Speed Copy Center Joyce's Casuals 32 Lois' Flowers 71 McDonald's House of Furniture 72 Harbormaster Office 33 Danny's Fried Chicken 73 CJ's Waterfront Landing 34 Long Beach Barber Shop 74 Chamber of Commerce 35 Sr. Citizens' Center 75 Long Beach Yacht Club 36 Auto Muffler & Pipe 76 The Chimneys Restaurant TL's Tackle Shop 53 The number of employees working in the study area businesses ranged from one employee at eleven of the area's smaller businesses, to 200 at K-Mart. A total of 757 persons were reportedly employed by businesses within the study area. Approximately 150 of those persons work in the downtown area along Jeff Davis Avenue, along with another 70-75 persons who work at City Hall, Long Beach Library or the McCaughan Elementary School. Approximately 570 (75%) of the total persons employed in the area work in waterfront area establishments. The largest employers within the study area were: K-Mart (200), Sav-A-Center (137), McDonald's (60), McCaughan Elementary School (50), The Chimneys Restaurant (40), High Speed Copy Center (18), K&B Drugs (17), Indy's (17), Barnaby's Restaurant (15), City Hall (15), and Long Beach Resort Inn (13). Forty-four 60% of the businesses employed 4 or less persons, and eleven (15%) of the businesses employed 10 or more persons. Question I - Does the business own or lease the building? Over 55% (41) of the businesses in the study area leased their buildings. Seventeen (63%) of the 27 waterfront businesses in the downtown area leased their space. Three of the 12 businesses within the study area which were not adjacent to the waterfront or the Jeff Davis Avenue area were leasing their building. Question 2 - What is the square footage of the building? Question 3 - How much of that space is occupied by your business? Question 4 - Are there other businesses in the building? If so, how much space do they occupy? Question 5 - How much vacant space is there in the building? Questions 2 through 5, dealing with square footages of the buildings and businesses within were not uniformly responded to by survey participants, and are more accurately depicted in the ownership listing (see Appendix B). Businesses within the study area occupied from less than 500 square feet (Long Beach Barber Shop and Ideal Clothesout) to 90,000 square feet (K-Mart). Question 6 - How long have you been in business? How long at this location? Seven of the merchants along Jeff davis Avenue indicated that they have been in business at their present locations for over 20 years: Hancock Bank (40 yrs.); Long Beach Barber Shop (32 yrs.); Lois Flowers (30 yrs.); Merchants Bank (27 yrs.); K&B Drugs (24 yrs.); Long 54 Beach Cleaners (22 yrs.); and the Hitching Post (21 yrs.). Only one waterfront business (other than K&B) indicated that it had been in business at its present location for over twenty years, Magnolia Federal Bank. Five businesses along Jeff Davis Avenue and three waterfront businesses have been operating in their present locations for less than one year. Eighteen downtown and 16 waterfront businesses have been operating for less than five years. Question 7 - What is your busiest day of the week? Question 8 - What is the busiest part of the day? Of the 36 downtown businesses who responded to Questions 7 and 8, eleven (31%) replied that their busiest day varied, and fourteen (39%) said that their busiest hours varied. Nineteen of the downtown businesses (53%) stated that weekdays were their busiest days, while seven (19%) replied that Saturdays were busiest. Seven downtown businesses (19%) said that morning hours were their busiest, nine businesses (25%) cited the afternoon hours and seven (19%) named 11:00 AM - 2:00 PM as their busiest hours. Only three businesses (8%) replied that evening were their busiest hours. Of the 21 waterfront businesses responding to Questions 7 and 8, twenty (95%) cited the weekends (Fri. - Sun.) as their busiest days. Eleven of those (52%) specifically cited Saturdays, six (29%) said Fridays and one (5%) replied that Sundays were busiest for them. Only one (5%) stated that weekdays were busiest. Seven waterfront businesses (33%) cited the evening hours as their busiest, six (29%) said afternoon hours were busiest and two stated that the morning hours were their busiest. Six of the businesses (29%) replied that the hours between 11:00 AM - 3:00 PM were their busiest. Question 9 - How frequently do the majority of your clientele visit your business? The 36 downtown merchants responded as follows: daily, 4 (11%); 3-4 times per week, 2 (6%); 1-2 times per week, 9 (25%); 2-3 times per month, 9 (25%); once per month, 2 (6%); and, less than once per month, 10 (28%). The 27 waterfront merchants responded to Question 9 as follows: daily, 0; 3-4 times per week, 4 (15%); 1-2 times per week, 10 (37%); 2-3 times per month, 5 (19%); once per month, 3 (11%); and less than once per month, 5 (19%). I ~~over 58% of downtown merchants cited their customers as typically frequenting their businesses less than once per week, while the same was true of 48% of the waterfront I ~~businesses' customers and 82%, of the other study area businesses' customers. Question 10 - What is your primary method of promoting your business and attracting customers? Fifty-six of the 73 study area merchants responded to this question. Their * ~~~responses were as follows in Table 19. Table 20 Primary Methods Used for Promoting I ~~~~~~~Study Area Businesses Number of Businesses Ranking Each I ~~~~~~~~~Method in Order of Importance I ~~~Method of Promotion First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Radio Advertisements 2 3 2 2 0 0 TV Advertisements 2 1 2 3 0 0 Word of Mouth 40 8 5 2 0 0 Group Promotions 1 1222 Window Displays 3 15 4 2 1 0 Newspaper Advertisements 7 13 7 2 1 0 other 2 5 9 2 0 0 By far the most widely depended upon method of promotion was I ~~"word of mouth", with over 98%1 of responding businesses saying it was among the top four methods. Newspaper advertisements was the second most popular method with 54% of the respondents listing it among their top five. Window displays ranked third among the respondents, with 45% of them placing it among their top five methods. The f ourth most popularly used category was "other" which included in I ~~~descending order of frequency: Yellow Pages listings/ads; sponsoring youth athletics; billboard and bench ads; fashion shows; hair shows; and festivals. Radio and TV advertisements, with 16% and 14% of respondents respectively listing them among their four most important methods, were ranked fifth and sixth. Group promotions were relatively * ~~~seldom used among the businesses. Question 12. - What percent of your business is tourist related? With all 36 downtown businesses responding to this I ~~question, 29 of (81%) them said that less than 5% of their business was tourist-related. Among those 29 businesses, 17 responded that none of their business was tourist-related. Seven businesses (19%) stated that tourism accounted for 10% or more of their business. Only three downtown area businesses (8%) said that 25% or more of their business was tourist-related. All three of those were antique or gift shops. I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5 As would be expected, waterfront businesses typically reported much higher tourist-related business. Of the 27 waterfront business responding, seven (26%) said that over 50% of their business was tourist-related. Seven more businesses cited 25% - 50% tourist-related business. In total, 20 of the 27 waterfront businesses (74%) said that at least 10% of their business was tourist-related. Of the ten other businesses in the study area who responded, I ~~six (60%) said that none of their business was tourist- related. None said that over 5% was tourist-related. * ~~Question 12 -Do you think that business in downtown Long Beach has improved, declined or stayed the same over the past five years? Fifty of the 73 businesses (68%) in the study area responded to this question. Twenty-two (44%) I ~~~felt that business had declined; 14 (28%) said business had improved; and, 14 others (28%) said business appeared to have remained about the same over the past five years in the I ~~~downtown area. Question 13 - Do you think that business will improve, decline or remain the same over the next five years? Forty- eight of the businesses (66%) responded to this question. Twenty-eight of the respondents (58%) expressed optimism for improved business in the next five years. However, ten of I ~~~those respondents were guardedly optimistic, citing hopes of improved tourism, which they said could be contingent upon the approval of dockside gambling in Harrison County. I ~~Twelve of the respondents (25%) felt that business would remain about the same, and eight (17%) expected business to decline over the next five years. I ~~~Question 14 - If you had the opportunity to move your business out of the downtown Long Beach area, would you? of the 34 downtown merchants who responded to this question, 28 (82%) replied that they would not move from the area, while six (18%) said they would move if given the chance. While 44% of the businesses said that business has declined in the downtown area over the past five years, and 42% did not expect improvement during the next five years, it appears that area merchants are, by and large, committed to the area. Question 15 - What types of new businesses would you like to I ~~~see in the downtown and waterfront areas? The responses from the downtown merchants to this question were: restaurants (16) ; clothing stores (8) ; specialty shops (5) ; professional offices (5); recreational businesses (5); 57 department stores (4); movie theatre (4); arts/crafts/antique shops (4); dockside gambling (4); shoe store (2); hotels (2); anything (2); sporting goods; office supplies; mini-mall; mini-flea market; vegetable stands; and, nothing. The responses from the waterfront merchants were: dockside gambling (7); tourist-related (6); hotels (6); restaurants (5); recreational businesses (5); clothing stores (4); specialty shops (3); movie theatre (2); entertainment (2); teen center; shoe store; beach vendors; art & crafts; yard goods; and, mini-mall. Question 16 - What infrastructure improvements (streets, sidewalks, medians, etc.) would you like to see in the downtown and waterfront areas? Downtown area merchants' responses to this question included: street improvements (14); sidewalk improvements (13); general; cleanup (11); renovate buildings/store fronts (9); storefront/sidewalk planters (7); parking improvements (6); underground utilities (5); clean up vacant lots (4); landscaping (4); street lights (4); plant trees (3); nicer medians on U.S. 90 (3); improve beach/harbor access (3); street signs (2); boardwalk (2); bicycle path (2); teen center (2); no more building in the harbor (2); playground; walking path; crosswalk/overpass on U.S. 90; and, none. Waterfront merchants' responses to Question 16 were: improved harbor access (7); street improvements (6) ; sidewalk improvements (3); general cleanup (3); renovate downtown buildings (3); street lighting on U.S. 90 (3); boardwalks (3); landscaping (2); parking improvements (2); garbage collection improvements (2); nicer medians; clean up vacant lots; street signs; and, drainage improvements. Question 17 - What other types of improvements would you suggest to improve the business climate of the area? Downtown merchants' responses to this question were: more cooperation among businesses (4); a business directory sign at the intersection of U.S. 90 and Jeff Davis Avenue (3); better government (3); find appropriate use for the old A&P and National buildings (3); commercial diversification (2); neater individual business appearances (2); nicer store signs (2); downtown theme (2); longer business hours downtown (2); entertainment for teens (2) improved downtown traffic flow (2); more law enforcement (2); more appealing entrance from U.S. 90 to Jeff Davis Avenue; trash cleanup on the waterfront; open air pavilion for music and dances; lower taxes; and, no change. 58 I ~~Waterfront merchants responded to Question 17 as follows: street lighting on U.S. 90 (3); establish a state lottery (2); lower speed limit on U.S. 90; create evening hour shopping atmosphere; an exclusive RV park; more things to do; and, spend tax dollars more wisely. I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 Resident Survey The resident survey form (see Resident survey Form in Appendix C) was developed to gain information relative to the shopping habits of Long Beach residents as well as their perceptions of existing conditions within the study area. Input from the residents was also sought regarding their ideas for improving the economic vitality of the area. A total of 380 residents throughout the City were surveyed by GRPC staff and Advisory Committee members. Many were surveyed at their homes, while numerous others were surveyed at shopping centers and various meeting places in the City. Additionally, a random telephone survey was conducted which accounted for 120 of the resident responses. The 380 Long Beach residents who responded to the survey were, by and large, enthusiastic at the opportunity to voice their opinions and ideas regarding conditions within, and future development of their urban waterfront area. They are generally very cognizant of the importance of the area and its potential as a focal point for future economic development in the City. They are also aware that the beaches and waters of the Mississippi Sound which grace the I ~~~southern limits of their city are invaluable resources which vastly enhance the quality of life within the City, and must * ~~~be carefully nurtured and preserved. The resident survey, in addition to illuminating various shopping habits among the respondents, provided a forum for City residents to voice their opinions and concerns about existing conditions in the study area as well as their preferences for the area's future. The following Exhibits A and B are the resident survey forms with the total responses indicated numerically and as percentages of the total respectively. Summary of Survey Findings There are currently no grocery stores operating in the downtown area. Long Beach residents primarily do their I ~~grocery shopping in the City, however, with 86% and 78% of the respondents at least occasionally shopping in the waterfront area and other areas of Long Beach respectively. I ~~Although 32% of respondents said they occasionally shopped for groceries in the Gulfport or Biloxi areas, approximately half of those do so infrequently. Also, a good portion of those who shop in the Gulfport or Biloxi areas more frequently, probably do so as a convenience on their way home from working in those areas, or are shopping at one of the commissaries at either Keesler or the Sea Bee Base. 60 Long Beach residents, by and large, do their drug store shopping in the City. While there may have been some I ~~confusion among survey participants as to whether the K&B Drug Store was considered "downtown" or "waterfront", it is evident that at least 29% of respondents shop there since it is the only drug store which could be considered in the downtown area. The vast majority of respondents do their drug store shopping in the waterfront area (some of which probably include K&B as well as the K-Mart pharmacy), and to a lesser extent, in other areas of Long Beach. For their general shopping needs, 62% and 60% of the * ~~respondents shop at least occasionally in the downtown and waterfront areas respectively. However, the frequency of this shopping was considerably higher in the waterfront area. While 45% of the respondents patronized merchants in I ~~other areas of Long Beach for general shopping, the frequency was considerably lower. The vast majority of respondents shop at least occasionally in the Gulfport or I ~~Biloxi areas, much of which is probably done at the Edgewater Mall in Biloxi, and in the commercial area along Highway 49 north of Gulfport. I ~~~For professional services, the vast majority of respondents appear to go to the Biloxi or Gulfport areas. Thirty-three percent patronize professional offices in downtown Long Beach while 34% seek professional services in other areas of * ~~Downtown Long Beach is the primary destination of respondents for miscellaneous errands, with 86% going there for their banking, dry cleaning or for business at City * ~~~Hall. While 79% of respondents eat at restaurants in the Gulfport and\or Biloxi areas at least occasionally, 70% said that they eat at restaurants in the waterfront area of Long Beach, and, they do it more frequently. For meeting with friends and socializing, respondents most often visit in the Gulfport or Biloxi areas, with 72% doing so at least occasionally. However, the waterfront area of Long Beach seems to also be a frequent destination for social gatherings, with 37% reportedly socializing there three or more times per month. of the respondents who were employed, 29% worked in Gulfport or Biloxi, 22% in other areas of Long Beach, 13% in downtown Long Beach, 9% in the waterfront area, and 8% in Pass * ~~~Christian or Bay St. Louis. 61 Over half of the respondents (55%) use the harbor recreational facilities at least occasionally. Twenty-six I ~~~percent use the facilities three or more times per -month. The vast majority of respondents go downtown mostly on weekdays. Twenty-six percent usually go downtown after work, 19% on Saturdays and 11% on Sundays (mostly to church). I ~~When asked to rate the downtown and waterfront areas for attractiveness, 78%1 of the respondents rated the downtown from fair to poor, with only 19% rating it good. Conversely, 51% rated the waterfront as good, and only 9% rated it poor. For cleanliness, the downtown was rated generally fair, with I ~~~the waterfront being considered somewhat better. Regarding parking convenience, respondents had diverse opinions, with equal amounts of respondents rating the U ~~~downtown area as good and as poor. The waterfront area faired much better, with 62% rating parking convenience as good, and only 8% as poor. Traffic flow in the downtown area was rated generally fair, with that of the waterfront being rated considerably better. only 13% of respondents rated traffic flow in the waterfront For convenience of shopping hours, the downtown area was rated good by 41%, and poor by 25% of respondents. The waterfront area received a good rating by 71%, and a poor * ~~~rating by only 3% of the respondents. In regard to the friendliness of merchants, both downtown * ~~~and waterfront area merchants were generally rated as good. Respondents generally considered both the downtown and waterfront areas as fairly safe, with only 10% rating the I ~~downtown area and 1% rating the waterfront area as poor for safety. The variety of goods and services in the downtown area was I ~~~rated from fair to poor by 78% of respondents, with only 18% rating it as good. The waterfront area was rated considerably better in this category, with 38% rating it as good, and 42% as fair. For cost of goods and services, the downtown area was rated I ~~generally fair, with the waterfront area being rated somewhat better. 62 Regarding the quality of goods and services, both the downtown area and the waterfront area were generally rated from fair to good by 82% and 89% of respondents respectively. Special events and festivals in the downtown area received divergent ratings from respondents, with fairly equal numbers rating them as good (34%), as fair (32%) and as poor (27%). The waterfront area was rated similarly, but with a higher percentage of respondents (40%) rating it as good. When asked what types of businesses they would like to see more of in the downtown area, the resident's responses were as listed below. -Restaurants\Cafes (104 responses) -Clothing stores (66 responses) -Specialty shops (52 responses) -Professional offices (38 responses) -Movie theatre (30 responses) -Shoe store (25 responses) -None (18 responses) -Mini-mall (17 responses) -Wal-Mart (16 responses) -Home furnishings (15 responses) -Fast food restaurants (14 responses) -Fabric store (13 responses) -Discount stores (13 responses) -Bowling alley (12 responses) -Sporting goods (12 responses) -Building supplies (10 responses) -Craft shops (10 responses) -Variety stores (9 responses) -Bakery (9 responses) -Card shops (9 responses) -Factory outlets (8 responses) -Coffee shop (8 responses -Farmers' market (7 responses) -Music store (5 responses) -Jewelry store (5 responses -School\Office supplies (5 responses) -Teen activity center (5 responses) -Anything (5 responses) -Flea market (5 responses) -Electronics store (4 responses) -Bingo (4 responses) -Locksmith (3 responses) -TV repair (3 responses) 63 When asked what types of businesses they would like to see more of in the waterfront area, residents responded as listed below. -Restaurants\Cafes (58 responses) -Hotels\Motels (57 responses) -General tourist-related (43 responses) -Recreational (43 responses) -Dockside gambling (30 responses) -Clothing stores (27 responses) -Movie theatre (26 responses) -Bars\Lounges (25 responses) -Fast food restaurants (24 responses) -None (24 responses) -Discount stores (22 responses) -General retail (21 responses) -Wal-Mart (19 responses) -Specialty shops (16 responses) -Water park (13 responses) -Outdoor pavilion (11 responses) -Miniature golf (8 responses) -Boating supplies (5 responses) -Beach vendors (5 responses) -Electronics store (5 responses) -Video store (5 responses) -Ice cream parlor (4 responses) -Home furnishings (3 responses) -Sporting goods (3 responses) -Oyster bar (3 responses) When asked what types of businesses they would like to see more of elsewhere in Long Beach, residents responded as listed below. -General retail (19 responses) -Bowling alley (17 responses) -Factory outlets (16 responses) -Specialty shops (14 responses) -None (14 responses) -Light industry (13 responses) -Building supplies (11 responses) -Movie theatre (11 responses) -Businesses catering to teens (10 responses) -Sporting goods (7 responses) -Wal-Mart (7 responses) -Video store (6 responses) -New car sales (5 responses) -Electronics store (5 responses) -High tech businesses (4 responses) -Fabric store (3 responses) -Laundromat (2 responses) 64 When asked what types of businesses they would like to see more of in the waterfront area, residents responded as listed below. -Restaurants\Cafes (58 responses) -Hotels\Motels (57 responses) -General tourist-related (43 responses) -Recreational (43 responses) -Dockside gambling (30 responses) -Clothing stores (27 responses) -Movie theatre (26 responses) -Bars\Lounges (25 responses) -Fast food restaurants (24 responses) -None (24 responses) -Discount stores (22 responses) -General retail (21 responses) -Wal-Mart (19 responses) -Specialty shops (16 responses) -Water park (13 responses) -Outdoor pavilion (11 responses) -Miniature golf (8 responses) -Boating supplies (5 responses) -Beach vendors (5 responses) -Electronics store (5 responses) -Video store (5 responses) -Ice cream parlor (4 responses) -Home furnishings (3 responses) -Sporting goods (3 responses) -Oyster bar (3 responses) When asked what types of businesses they would like to see more of elsewhere in Long Beach, residents responded as listed below. -General retail (19 responses) -Bowling alley (17 responses) -Factory outlets (16 responses) -Specialty shops (14 responses) -None (14 responses) -Light industry (13 responses) -Building supplies (11 responses) -Movie theatre (11 responses) -Businesses catering to teens (10 responses) -Sporting goods (7 responses) -Wal-Mart (7 responses) -Video store (6 responses) -New car sales (5 responses) -Electronics store (5 responses) -High tech businesses (4 responses) -Fabric store (3 responses) -Laundromat (2 responses) 64 When asked what businesses, buildings or landmarks first came to mind when they thought of downtown Long Beach, the residents responded as follows. -City Hall (94 responses) -Hancock Bank (70 responses) -McCaughan Elementary School (37 responses) -Long Beach Library (33 responses) -Merchants Bank (32 responses) -Magnolia Federal Bank (32 responses) -None (31 responses) -Masonic Lodge (26 responses) -Hitching Post (20 responses) -Ace Hardware (20 responses) -Antique shops (19 responses) -Empty or dilapidated buildings (18 responses) -Senior Citizens' Center (17 responses) -Old Post Office (15 responses) -K-Mart (13 responses) -Danny's Fried Chicken (12 responses) -Long Beach Barber Shop (12 responses) -K&B Drug Store (8 responses) -Lois' Flowers (7 responses) -High Speed Copy Center (6 responses) -Old Sonic Restaurant site (5 responses) -Rose garden (4 responses) -Sun Dial (4 responses) -One-Stop Auto Parts (3 responses) Long Beach residents, much the same as in other coastal cities in the region, are fond of their Mardi Gras Parade. Sixty-four percent of the respondents said they attend that parade, while the second most frequented special event in the City was the Radish Festival, with 39% of the respondents attending. Forty-six percent of the respondents were male, and 54% were female. The largest age group among the respondents were those between the ages of 36 and 50. Seventeen percent were over the age of 65, while less than one percent were under the age of 18. Seventy-five percent of the respondents have lived in the City for 11 or more years, with 54% having lived there for over twenty years. Approximately 81% of the respondents listed their annual household income range in the survey. Of those, only 23% listed their household income as less than $20,000 per year, while 29% said theirs was over $50,000 annually. Thirty- seven percent of the respondents lived in two-person households, while 13% were in one-person households. Only 8% lived in households with five or more persons. 65 The following listing represents the suggestions and comments of the residents regarding improving the downtown and\or waterfront areas of Long Beach. - General cleanup (73 responses) - Renovate downtown buildings\storefronts (68 responses) - Improve sidewalks (66 responses) - Improve streets (42 responses) - Landscaping (36 responses) - Plant trees (33 responses) - Build flower planters (32 responses) - Establish a downtown and\or waterfront theme (30 responses) - Clean beaches better (28 responses) - Dockside gambling (26 responses) - More attractions (25 responses) - Nicer medians along US 90 (21 responses) - Find use for vacant buildings at intersection of US 90 and Jeff Avenue (20 responses) - Recreation center for young people (19 responses) - Street lighting along US 90 (19 responses) - Amusement park (18 responses) - Hotels (18 responses) - Underground utilities along Jeff Davis Avenue (16 responses) - Beach\harbor access from Jeff Davis Avenue (15 responses) - Establish downtown building design (13 responses) - Boardwalks and shops along the south side of US 90 (12 responses) - More beach shelters (10 responses) - Biking trail (9 responses) - No dockside gambling (9 responses) - Widen Jeff Davis Avenue (8 responses) - Sidewalks along US 90 (7 responses) - Keep bedroom community appeal (7 responses) - Factory outlets (6 responses) - Farmers' market (6 responses) - Each merchant improve and care for property in front of business (6 responses) - Cooperation between merchants to promote downtown district (6 responses) - Establish an entertainment\cultural complex at US 90 and Jeff Davis Avenue (5 responses) - Bon-fire pits on the beach (5 responses) - Encourage only businesses that will complement the waterfront area to locate there (4 responses) - Enlarge harbor (4 responses) - Pave 28th Street (4 responses) - Four-lane Railroad Street (4 responses) - Four-lane Beatline Road from 1-10 (3 responses) - Lower taxes (3 responses) 66 I ~~~- Eliminate unattractive business signs (3 responses) - Flamarket (2 responses) - Turn the old Sonic site into a farmers, craft or flea I ~~~~market (2 responses) - Enlarge the harbor (2 responses) - Do away with tacky car lots (2 responses) - Remove stop signs from Jeff Davis Avenue - More parking adjacent to the harbor - Build a service drive from Russell Avenue to Cleveland Avenue, south of US 90 I ~~~- Dredge the harbor - Hire a city planner - Develop more space for new businesses adjacent to the harbor - Build a shelter and benches on the fishing pier - Establish a mini-mall in the old A&P building - Paint pedestrian crossings - Increase police patrol - Have people work off municipal fines by cleaning up downtown I ~~~- Use the waterfront as the City's commercial center - Tax "all" beachfront property owners - Dredge ten acres of sand east and west of the harbor and establish a year-round fun park - Allow fuel to be sold at the harbor - Clean up the water in the harbor I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6 I I I I I I I I Goals and Objectives I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~~~~~~~~GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The underlying goal of this study is, simply put, to suggest measures for improving the urban waterfront area, which will upon implementation, lead to an enhancement of the quality of life of Long Beach residents. The measures are intended to provide increased economic and recreational opportunities for residents, and to increase public revenues to enable the City to provide necessary services, facilities and infrastructural improvements to make Long Beach an even better place in which to live. * ~~~The City is faced with several dilemmas which present major stumbling blocks to its efforts to provide improved and additional services and amenities for its residents. I - ~~~The City has relatively little sales tax revenue, and therefore must rely heavily on property taxes to fund basic * ~~~municipal services. - The City has traditionally been a bedroom community, and with its relatively low commercial and industrial activity, has been unable to provide sufficient jobs to keep many of its residents from having to leave the City to find work. - The City's downtown area, once the hub of commercial and social activity, has been in a state of physical and economic decline for decades. * -~~~While the City has a potentially economically dynamic waterfront area, it must proceed with caution in its efforts to commercialize the area to ensure both optimum development * ~~~and protection of the area. - Efforts to foster commercial growth in the City are faced with the challenge of overcoming the City's relatively poor accessibility from other areas of the County. After considerable public input via the opinion surveys, and several meetings of the Urban Waterfront Advisory Committee, four basic goals were established to address these critical issues. To facilitate the achievement of these goals, several sub-goals were developed for each basic goal. objectives, or methods of achieving the desired goals and sub-goals were then identified. I ~~The accomplishment of the objectives, sub-goals and ultimately, the goals presented herein will require a concerted effort by the City's business community, civic and Governmental leadership and citizenry. The goals are: 1. Revitalize the downtown central business district; 2. optimize commercial opportunities in the urban waterfront area; 3. improve public access to harbor and beach areas; and, 4. Improve access to Long Beach. To facilitate the accomplishment of these goals, sub-goals were developed for each goal as follows: Goal 1. Revitalize the downtown central business district. U ~~~~~- Establish and maintain a downtown theme. - Seek new business ventures and encourage expansion of existing businesses within the I ~~~~~~downtown area. - Improve the overall appearance and image of the downtown area. - Improve pedestrian and vehicular access to the U ~~~~~~downtown area. - Encourage residents to patronize downtown businesses. - Establish a link between the downtown and the waterfront commercial and recreational areas. Goal 2. Optimize commercial and recreational opportunities in the urban waterfront area. - Develop additional recreational facilities in and near the harbor area. - Seek new business ventures to locate in existing vacant structures along US 90. - Enhance and protect the aesthetic quality of the waterfront area. - Promote tourism. Goal 3. Improve public access to the harbor and beach areas. - Expedite completion of proposed Jeff Davis Avenue beach/harbor access project (see Figure 5). - Promote development of beach access projects in other beach areas in the City as proposed in the Sand Beach Master Plan (see Appendix A). Goal 4. Improve access to Long Beach. - Seek improvements to 28th Street. - Seek better and more direct access from I-la, through improvements to either Klondyke Road or to Beatline Road. - Improve signage to the City, and to the downtown and waterfront areas, particularly from the north. 70 Tasks which could collectively lead to the accomplishment of the desired goals and sub-goals were identified and listed. I ~~~These tasks, for the purposes of this study, will be referred to as objectives. The following pages discuss the sub-goals and objectives as developed for each of the goals. In discussing the objectives as identified to achieve the goals and sub-goals, general recommendations for activities which need to be undertaken are provided. To further identify specific courses of action, and to coordinate and I ~~~sustain activities critical to the attainment of the goals herein, it is recommended that the Long Beach Urban Waterfront Advisory remain active in an advisory and I ~~~coordinative capacity. I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7 I ~~~Goal 1: ReVitalize the downtown business district. The sub-goals for this goal are: 1. To establish and maintain a downtown theme. 2. To seek new business ventures and encourage expansion of * ~~~~existing businesses within the downtown area. 3. To improve the overall appearance and image of the downtown area. 4. To improve vehicular and pedestrian access to the I ~~~~downtown area. 5. To encourage residents to patronize downtown businesses. 6. To establish a link between the downtown and the I ~~~~waterfront commercial and recreational areas. Sub-cioal 1: To establish and maintain a downtown theme. 'The sub-goal of establishing and maintaining a downtown theme was discussed on several occasions by Committee members, several of whom cited examples of successful theme- oriented revitalizations of downtowns in other areas of the I ~~nation. indeed, there are numerous examples where communities have rejuvenated their ailing traditional downtown by creating various theme-oriented downtown districts which appeal both to local residents and visitors. The concept has been promoted by the national Mainstreet Program as an integral part of its downtown revitalization efforts. The objectives identified to achieve this sub-goal are as-follows. * ~~~~~~~~~objectives - Determine an appropriate theme for the downtown area. The theme may be based on any variety of historical or other cultural characteristics of the City or region. Some of the specific themes suggested by members of the Committee and/or residents were: a fishing village; international or regional food or cultural I ~~~~~theme (i.e. southern, cajun or international foods and gift items); musical entertainment (i.e. develop musical performance facilities at which a variety of I ~~~~~concerts and/or dances could be held) ; an old southern truck farming community with farmers' markets, general stores, country crafts, art, music, etc.; a regional arts and crafts center; and, a tropical resort theme. - Establish architectural and design concepts for storefronts, buildings, signs, lighting and other related facilities and amenities in the downtown area, I ~~~~~which will portray and promote the selected theme. - Have the ~City provide incentives to business and building owners to make structural and facade I ~~~~improvements consistent with the architectural and design concepts. These incentives could be in the form of one-time tax breaks for building and property * ~~~~~improvements consistent with the theme concept. 72 I - ~~~Require new construction and development in the downtown to comply with the architectural and design * ~~~~~standards as established. Sub-caoal 2: Seek new business ventures and encourage the expansion of existinca businesses within the downtown area. Several Committee members stated that the current mix of downtown merchants did not present an adequate mixture of goods and services to draw residents and visitors to the area for their shopping needs. This view was also shared by I ~~~numerous residents as evidenced by their survey responses. There is considerable vacant commercial space in the * ~~~downtown area for which suitable merchants should be sought. The City's success in luring new businesses to the downtown area will be enhanced by the accomplishment of each of the sub-goals and objectives which will both individually and collectively improve the business climate of the area, making it much more attractive to prospective businesses. I ~~~~~~~~~obi ectives -The City should consider providing incentives for new businesses to locate in the downtown area, and for existing businesses to expand. The incentives could be various forms of tax breaks or other start-up assistance. Incentives could be provided for I ~~~~businesses to locate in existing structures in particular. -The City could work with commercial property owners in I ~~~~the downtown area, offering incentives for them to make improvements to their property and buildings which would make them more attractive to businesses. -The City could solicit assistance from utility companies by their providing breaks on utility bills during the start-up phase for new businesses. -The City should consider employing a variety of I ~~~~methods for promoting its commercial centers throughout the City, and encourage cooperative promotional programs among existing downtown I ~~~~~merchants. -The City should maintain a current listing of available vacant buildings and property throughout the City, particularly in the downtown area, for potential business and housing developers. -The City should establish a committee to investigate possibilities for obtaining lower commercial insurance I ~~~~~rates for wind and water damage. The State Insurance Commission, local representatives to the legislature, the Gulf Coast Chamber of Commerce and the Small * ~~~~Business Administration should be enlisted for 73 I ~~~~~assistance in this matter. The committee should also investigate the feasibility of establishing a self- insurance cooperative for Long Beach businesses for I ~~~~~wind and water damage coverage. -The City should establish a committee of community and business leaders promote Long Beach and the downtown area to new businesses as well as existing businesses seeking to expand. The committee should market the attributes of the City and the region and should provide prospective entrepreneurs with information I ~~~~regarding: zoning; building codes and permits; available property; local banking, insurance, real estate and government contacts; SBA and SCORE I ~~~~~contacts; and, incentives available to businesses from local utility companies and the Mississippi Department of Economic Development. -The City should try to enlist the help of the SBA, I ~~~~USM-Gulf Park, Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College and other pertinent entities to sponsor workshops an small business development to assist I ~~~~~local residents in starting their own businesses. -The City should consider developing a small business incubator in the downtown area. I ~~~Sub-croal 3: To imonrove the overall aopearance and imacfe of the downtown area. In the resident survey, 78% of residents rated the downtown I ~~~area's appearance from fair to poor, with only 19% rating it as good. Merchants, in their survey, cited the need for street and sidewalk improvements, general clean-up, building I ~~~renovations/facade improvements, landscaping and numerous other appearance related improvements as being primary concerns of theirs for improving the business climate of the downtown area. The downtown area does not have an image to many residents, and when asked what came to mind when they thought of the downtown area, numerous residents responded with such negative images as dilapidated buildings, vacant I ~~~buildings, unkept vacant lots and, "nothing". In order to effectively draw residents and visitors to the downtown area, and to encourage businesses to locate and/or expand in I ~~~the area, it is essential that the area be made more aesthetically pleasing and, more "user-friendly" to the shopping public. The following objectives were developed * ~~~toward that end. Objectives -Improve maintenance of streets in the downtown area. In addition to more frequent cleaning of the streets, they should be properly striped and marked to clearly I ~~~~~identify lanes, parking spaces and crosswalks. I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~74 I - ~~~Improve maintenance and appearance of sidewalks in the downtown area. Merchants should be encouraged to keep sidewalks groomed, and to construct and maintain I ~~~~flower planters in front of their businesses. The planters should also be of consistent design. -The City should work with downtown merchants to establish a general clean-up and maintenance program for the area. The City and merchants should work closely in identifying problem areas and in initiating activities needed to alleviate the problems. I - ~~~The City should establish and enforce policies to maintain property not maintained by private property owners. * -~~~~Provide appropriate furnishings to encourage people to stroll, -mingle and congregate in the downtown area. Benches, waste receptacles, water fountains and street lighting should be provided in appropriate areas, and I ~~~~should be of style and design consistent with the downtown theme. -Decorate the downtown area with banners, street downtown theme. -Business signs in the downtown area should be required to be in conformity with design standards developed to promote the theme or desired ambience for the area. -The City should investigate the feasibility of removing overhead utility wiring in the downtown area. I ~~~This would improve the area's appearance and pedestrian appeal considerably. -The City should consider developing public restrooms in the downtown area for shoppers convenience. Sub-croal 4: Improve pedestrian and vehicular access to the downtown area. The Committee stressed the importance of seeking improved access to the City at several of its meetings. Several members repeatedly cited the inadequacy of existing access I ~~~to the City from I-10 and areas north of the City. Access to the City in general will be addressed under Goal 4 later in this document. This sub-goal is concerned primarily with I ~~improving access to the downtown area from within the City. The objectives identified to accomplish this sub-goal are as follows. I ~~~~~~~~~Obiecie -The City should provide uniform directional signs motorists of the direction and distance to the downtown area. Directional signs should be located throughout the downtown area, leading people to various businesses, amenities and points of interest. 75 I - ~~A downtown business directory sign should be strategically placed at the intersection of US 90 and Jeff Davis Avenue. The sign should be constructed in I ~~~~the motif of the downtown theme. -Streets in the downtown area should be properly striped and marked to clearly identify lanes, parking spaces and crosswalks. -The City should consider the possibility of extending Jeff Davis Avenue northward to intersect with Klondyke Road in order to alleviate the existing traffic I ~~~~bottleneck at the intersection of Jef f Davis Avenue and Railroad Street. This would facilitate the movement of traffic in and through the downtown area. I - ~~~Available on-street and off-street parking should be marked to be clearly identifiable by motorists in the downtown area. -Wider, more accessible sidewalks should be constructed I ~~~~in the downtown area. Wheel chair ramps should be constructed to provide handicapped accessibility throughout the area. I - ~~~Pedestrian amenities such as benches, water fountains and waste receptacles should be provided in selected areas. -Covered walkways, as well as awnings and overhangs on downtown buildings should be given consideration to provide relief from the elements for pedestrians. -The City should continue to push for the completion of I ~~~the proposed beach/harbor access from Jeff Davis Avenue project which will make access from the harbor * ~~~~and beach areas to the downtown much more convenient. Sub-croal 5: Encouracre residents to Patronize downtown businesses. Several business owners expressed concern, in the merchant survey, that Long Beach residents do not seem to support the City's merchants. Many residents (78%), however, responded in the resident survey that the variety of goods and I ~~services offered by downtown merchants was fair to poor. Some of the merchants also mentioned that they felt that the current mix of merchants in the downtown area did not offer * ~~a wide enough variety of goods and services to promote viable commercial activity in the area. While the resident survey indicated that residents, in I ~~general, thought that the quality and prices of goods and services offered by downtown merchants were reasonable, it appears that the downtown commercial area does not offer a I ~~large enough variety of the goods and services needed to draw residents to the area for their shopping needs. While other factors including parking convenience, traffic flow I ~~problems, safety, friendliness of merchants, etc. were 76 I ~~occasionally cited as deterrents to shopping downtown by residents, those comments were few in number, and heavily overshadowed by factors pertaining to aesthetic qualities I ~~and the variety of goods and services offered in the downtown area. Previously discussed objectives toward providing improvements to the downtown area's appearance will greatly enhance the accomplishment of this sub-goal The following objectives were developed to further encourage increased patronage of downtown businesses by residents and * ~~~visitors. objectives The City should begin a campaign to encourage Long Beach residents to shop in Long Beach. Residents should be educated as to the importance of shopping in their city. A Welcome Wagon program could be I ~~~~established for new residents, featuring merchandise and services provided by downtown merchants. Additionally, periodic mailouts to residents could I ~~~~provide information about downtown merchants and the goods and services they offer. - Businesses providing a variety of goods and services needed by residents should be recruited for the downtown area. Restaurants,, clothing stores, specialty shops and professional offices were indicated in the resident survey as the kinds of I ~~~~businesses most likely to be patronized downtown by residents. Encourage the establishment of specialty shops offering a variety of unique merchandise which I ~~~~may appeal to residents and visitors alike. - The City should establish a farmers' market at which regional farmers could sell their produce. This concept could be expanded to include flowers and plants, arts and crafts, baked or canned goods, etc. One site with particular potential for such a market is the old Sonic Restaurant location on Jeff Davis I ~~~~Avenue. - Promote tourism. Most of the previously mentioned objectives will likely encourage increased tourism to varying degrees. Encourage the development of hotels, motels, guest houses, bed and breakfast establishments, etc. to bring people to Long Beach. - The City should work closely with Coast Area Transit I ~~~~to expand public transit services in and to the City. With the opening of the Senior Citizens' Activity Center on Jeff Davis Avenue, there may now be more of I ~~~~a demand for bus service to the downtown area. As new merchants are added to the existing downtown commerce, the demand for bus service to the area may continue to * ~~~~grow. I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~77 I -~~~The City should continue to sponsor and promote festivals, parades, fairs and other community gatherings in the downtown and waterfront areas to I ~~~~reinforce the City's sense of community. Downtown and waterfront merchants should be involved in the planning and promotion of festivals. The merchants could sponsor festival advertisements which could include listings of area merchants, information on their goods and services, and special promotions. During these community gatherings, merchants should I ~~~encourage people to browse with a variety of promotional measures including announcements, hand- outs, signs and banners bringing attention to their I ~~~~products and/or special sales. Merchants may also want to consider staying open later to accommodate shopping. I ~~~Sub-aoal 6: Establish a link between the downtown and the waterfront recreation and commercial areas. The downtown and the adjacent commercial waterfront area I ~~collectively offer residents a variety of goods and services. By establishing a link between the two areas, it is likely that commercial activity in both areas would be enhanced. The two areas should be both symbolically and physically unified to create a more viable commercial attraction. The following objectives were developed to * ~~~accomplish this sub-goal. - The City should consider developing a theme for the downtown area which could be carried into the I ~~~~waterfront area. - As previously mentioned, existing plans to provide access to the harbor and beach from Jeff Davis Avenue should be carried forth. Those plans, as currently drawn, will provide much needed access to beach and harbor facilities, and convenient parking which could benefit both the downtown and the harbor area. I ~~~- The City should work closely with the Highway Department and the County to develop safe crosswalks, particularly at the intersections of Jeff Davis and I ~~~~Cleveland Avenues with US 90. Safe and convenient pedestrian crossings from beach and harbor areas to downtown and waterfront commercial areas north of the highway will be vital to promote recreational and commercial interaction between the two areas. - As commercial and recreational activity increases in the urban waterfront area, it may be feasible to I ~~~~establish some sort of shuttle service to transport people between the two areas. 78 I ~~~Goal 2: optimize commercial and recreational opportunities in the waterfront area. * ~~The sub-goals for this goal are: 1. To develop additional recreational facilities in and near the harbor area. 2. To seek new business ventures to locate in existing vacant structures along US 90. 3. To enhance and protect the aesthetic quality of the waterfront area. 4. To promote tourism. Sub-aoal 1: To develop additional recreational facilities * ~~in and near the harbor area. The harbor and the beaches on either side of it offer the greatest potential for recreational use of any area of the city. While there are-some recreational facilities in the I ~~area currently, there is great potential for increased recreational activity in the area. Numerous suggestions were made at Committee meetings and in resident and merchant I ~~surveys regarding the potential for development of various recreational facilities in the area. The following objectives were developed for this sub-goal. I ~~~~~~~~~Objectives - Encourage the development of recreational businesses in the waterfront area. Some of the recreational businesses mentioned a number of times in Committee meetings and/or the resident and merchant surveys were core ate rerainleupetrnaswater park, an amusement park, a miniature golf bowling alley and movie theatres. Bowling alley and movie theatre developments do not necessarily need waterfront exposure and would possibly be better suited for off-beach sites, rather than have them occupy prime waterfront property. I ~~~- Investigate the feasibility of a harbor expansion program to include dredging and filling to the south of the existing facility. By expanding the harbor I ~~~~southward, additional commercial and recreational facilities could be developed. The City could consider relocating existing leases to the expansion area to allow for the development of a major I ~~~~attraction such as a resort hotel, or theme park. Prior to embarking on such an ambitious project, careful consideration should be given to determine the most desirable character and uses of the harbor, and whether such activities would be complimentary. - Consider building a public pavillion over the water in the harbor. Such a facility could provide a place from which to stage numerous public events. 79 I - ~~~Build a public fishing pier at the harbor. The City should seek funding assistance to develop a fully functional fishing pier with covered shelter, lighting I ~~~~and benches. -Work with the Sand Beach Authority to develop permanent volleyball courts on the sand beach near the existing comfort station, and to build shelters on the sand beach on both sides of the harbor. -Provide a launch facility for small catamarans and other small non-motorized vessels, preferably on the I ~~~~west side of the harbor. -Consider developing a public green space near the harbor from which people could view water activities I ~~~~and events in the harbor. Playground equipment for children could be included in the development. Sub-croal 2: Seek new business ventures to locate in existincr vacant structures aloncr US 90. Existing vacant and partially vacant commercial structures along US 90 in the urban waterfront area could accommodate a wide array of new business ventures. If suitable new businesses were recruited and established at these sites, the entire area would be favorably impacted. I ~~The two large buildings formerly inhabited by the National and A&P food stores are of particular importance to the entire area. The vacant status of these two buildings at I ~~the primary entrance to the downtown area create a negative image to passers-by and potential shoppers. If businesses with substantial appeal and drawing capacity could be I ~~established in those two buildings, considerable spillover shopping activity may be experienced by the adjacent downtown area. I ~~Another building with considerable vacant comme rcial space is the Harbor Oaks Shopping Center directly across the highway from the harbor. This shopping center is currently I ~~the most dynamic commercial location in the City, and is anchored by the K-Mart department store and the Say-A-Center food store. The available vacant space at this site could I ~~accommodate a variety of businesses which could, in turn, provide additional drawing power to the area. The following objectives were developed from discussions I ~~held a the Committee meetings, and from comments derived from the merchant and resident surveys to accomplish this * ~~~sub-goal. U ~~~~~~~~~~~~~80 I ~~~~~~~~~Obiectives -The City should establish a committee of community and business leaders to promote the urban waterfront area to new potential new businesses. This could be the same committee as recommended. previously for the downtown area. The committee should market the attributes of the urban waterfront area of Long Beach and provide information to prospective businesses regarding: zoning: building codes and permits; I ~~~~specific waterfront development restrictions and requirements; available properties; local banking, insurance, real estate, and government contacts; and I ~~~~any incentives available to businesses from local government, utility companies and the Mississippi Department of Economic Development. -The City should consider providing incentives for new businesses to locate in existing structures along the waterfront, as previously mentioned for the downtown area. I - ~~~The City should work with the owners of existing vacant structures, offering them incentives to make improvements to their buildings and property which would make them more attractive to prospective new businesses. The City should strongly encourage the owners to follow design and style criteria consistent with the theme or image chosen for the downtown and/or I ~~~~waterfront area. The City may also consider offering the same or similar incentives to other commercial property owners in the area to encourage the I ~~~~consistency of design needed to develop a unified image and establish an identity for the area. -As mentioned previously, the City should establish a committee to investigate possibilities for obtaining lower rates for wind and water damage insurance. -The City should consider promoting the development of some type of entertainment complex using available I ~~~~commercial property at the intersection of Jeff Davis Avenue and US 90. Some of the ideas mentioned by Committee members for such a development included: a I ~~~~musical/theatrical complex in which a variety of musical and theatrical performances could be held; an international food and merchandise center at which numerous foods and various other products (arts, crafts, clothing, and other items of interest) could be offered from nations across the world; and, an open-air pavillion at which dances and a variety of I ~~~~other events could be staged to draw people to the area. The facility should be designed and decorated to create a festive atmosphere. U ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~81 Sub-aoal 3: Enhance and Drotect the aesthetic cfualitv of the waterfront area. The waterfront area is far and away the most prominent and important physical feature of the City of Long Beach and provides the residents and visitors of the City with numerous benefits. In addition to providing its beautiful I ~~views and many recreational opportunities to residents and visitors alike, and lovely homesites to those fortunate enough to afford them, the area is also the City's strongest attraction for commercial activity. While the area U ~~currently generates considerable property and sales tax dollars to fund public improvement projects throughout the City, there is tremendous potential for increasing commercial activity in the area. Increases in recreational and commercial activity in the waterfront area will be encouraged by implementing a variety of beautification measures in the waterfront area. Increased activity in the area will in turn magnify the importance of maintaining and protecting the aesthetic and environmental quality of the area. The following objectives were developed to accomplish this sub-goal. I ~~~~~~~~Obecive - Develop architectural and design criteria for all new development in the harbor. Adherence to these standards should be uniformly enforced, and the eventual conformance to them should be encouraged * ~~~~among existing establishments at the harbor. - The City should establish and enforce policies to maintain properties not maintained by their owners. - An urban waterfront beautification committee should be I ~~~~established to recruit volunteers and resources to maintain and beautify properties with absentee ownership and other key properties as needed. This committee should also work with property owners at key locations to beautify and create focal points on frontage property along US 90. - Attractive, low ground cover plants should be planted in the medians along US 90 to catch sand which escapes from the beach. - Work with the Highway Department to establish a I ~~~~specific work plan to maintain medians on US 90. - Landscape and beautify parking areas and other common areas within the harbor. I ~~~- The City should consider either removing the metal structure located east of the harbor entrance, or at least take measures to improve its appearance. 82 I -~~~Work with the Sand Beach Authority to develop a maintenance plan for Long Beach beaches. city officials should meet with the Sand Beach Authority's I ~~~~Technical Committee and develop a plan which addresses daily grooming and emergency related issues. The plan should include methods for the City to monitor both * ~~~the schedule and quality of the maintenance operations. -Work with the Sand Beach Authority and the sheriff's department to increase awareness and enforcement of I ~~~~existing beach ordinances. -Support the efforts of the Mississippi Marine Trash Task Force to reduce marine litter. Encourage boaters I ~~~~at the harbor to conscientiously dispose of their oil, trash and by-catch properly, and recruit volunteers to periodically remove trash and debris from the * ~~~~shoreline and near-shore waters. Sub-croal 4: Promote tourism. Tourism has been a primary industry and a vital part of I ~~Mississippi's coastal area's economy for well over a century. The City of Long Beach, despite having some of the most beautiful beach areas on the Coast, has historically not gotten its share of the area's tourism. With the current national economic recession from which the City has, unfortunately not been immune, and the reductions in federal funding available for local public improvement projects, it is essential that the city maximize opportunities for tourism related economic development. The need for increased tourism and associated job development is further I ~~magnified by proposed significant decreases in federal defense spending, which is likely to result in a considerable reduction in related jobs locally. U ~~Many of the recommendations mentioned in previous sub-goals and objectives will encourage tourism in the Long Beach area. obviously, previously mentioned improvements in the appearance of the area, and the development of additional things to do and places to stay will increase Long Beach's appeal to potential tourists. other objectives pertaining to increasing accessibility to and throughout the area will likewise contribute to the City's attractiveness to tourism. The following objectives, along with numerous objectives that have been or will be mentioned in this study have been developed to accomplish the sub-goal of promoting tourism in the City of Long Beach. 83 I ~~~~~~~~~obiectives -Encourage development of businesses which typically I ~~~~have high appeal to tourist (restaurants, hotels and recreational businesses) in the urban waterfront area. -The City should actively seek to lure popular organized recreational activities to Long Beach. The City should attempt to hold events which may generate regional appeal such as fishing rodeos, boat racing, volleyball tournaments, softball tournaments in all I ~~~age groups, kite flying and sand sculpturing competitions, etc. -City leaders should stay actively involved with the Harrison County Tourism Commission, making sure that the Commission stays abreast of attractions and events in the City, and that they are actively promoted. -The City may wish to develop a tourism task force to I ~~~~interact with the Harrison County Tourism Task Force and the Harrison County Tourism Commission in addressing issues related to the City's tourism goals. I - ~~~The City should encourage area merchants to work with Coast Area Transit in taking steps to lure tourists to local restaurants and shops via the weekend trolleys. * ~~~~Promotions providing tourist incentives should be developed. -The City should work with State and local agencies to provide street lighting along US 90 in the urban I ~~~~waterfront area. -The City should investigate the feasibility of lowering the speed limit along US 90 through the urban I ~~~~waterfront area to create a safer, more leisurely and less stressful environment. Lower speed limits and the provision of safe, well-identified crosswalks would benefit both residents and visitors wishing to enjoy the area, and would promote pedestrian interaction between the beach and harbor areas and the commercial areas north of US 90. I - ~~The City should investigate the feasibility of allowing dockside gaming vessels in its harbor if it is legalized within Harrison County. The City should push for legislation which would provide fair taxation of gaming operations and that revenues generated through the taxation are allocated so as to ensure adequate compensation to the City. I - ~~~If dockside gaming is not legalized in the County, the City should investigate various measures to capitalize on projected increased tourist traffic to be generated I ~~~~by proposed dockside gaming operations in neighboring Hancock County (i.e. recruit additional hotel/motel facilities, restaurants, and recreational * ~~~~attractions). 84 Goal 3: Improve public access to the harbor and beach * ~~~areas. To attain many of the objectives previously mentioned pertaining to providing additional commercial and recreational opportunities, attracting more people and generating additional commercial activity, the provision of additional and improved access to the harbor and beach areas can be of enormous benefit. While the City is fortunate to I ~~have a fine small craft harbor and miles of beautiful beaches, access to those resources is rather limited, which has both restricted recreational opportunities for residents * ~~and likely caused many tourists to pass through the City to get to more accessible recreational areas along the Coast. Access to beach areas near the downtown area and to the harbor has been particularly inadequate. There is virtually no parking along the south side of US 90 in the urban waterfront area to allow access to the beaches. The harbor currently has only one entrance, and it is not convenient to the downtown area. Recent parking lot development near the entrance of the harbor has Considerably improved access to the east side of the harbor and the adjacent beach area, but more parking is needed to provide access to the west side of the harbor and to the beaches directly south of the downtown * ~~~area. To provide improved public access to the harbor and beach areas, the following sub-goals and objectives were developed. Sub-aoal 1: Provide improved access to the west side of the harbor, and to the adiacent beach area. With access to the harbor currently limited to the entrance near the harbor area's northeast corner at the intersection of US 90 and Cleveland Avenue, during hours of peak usage, I ~~traffic flow is occasionally congested with boaters launching and parking their trailers, hindering the flow of of other motorists attempting to get to other areas of the * ~~~harbor. The beach area west of the harbor has historically been little used due to its inaccessibility, and, with improved I ~~access, could become one of the higher used beaches on the Coast. Access to this beach area, and to the harbor from Jeff Davis Avenue could essentially open a whole new area for the public's recreational enjoyment. The existing lack of convenient access to the harbor from I ~~the downtown area minimizes the potential for commercial interaction between the two areas. 85 Objective * -~~~The City should expedite the completion of the proposed Jeff Davis Avenue beach/harbor access project (see Figure 5). This project, as proposed will significantly increase accessibility to the harbor and I ~~~~adjacent beach areas, and is likely to promote major increases in commercial and recreational activity in those areas. Additionally, the convenient access I ~~~~which will be provided to and from the downtown area will vastly increase the potential for residents and tourists using beach and harbor facilities to * ~~~~patronize businesses in the downtown area. Sub-cqoal 2: Increase vublic use and enioyment of the harbor. I ~~The harbor has many fine facilities to provide for the use and enjoyment of the boating public. Additional facilities and amenities should be developed to increase accessibility I ~~to and enjoyment of the harbor by the non-boating public as well as boaters. In order to increase public use and enjoyment of the harbor, the following objectives were * ~~~developed. Obj ectives I -~~~Consider providing a green space/park area in the harbor area from which to view harbor activities. This could increase access to the harbor, and allow I ~~~~greater enjoyment of the area for the non-boating public as well as for boaters. -Consider constructing a pavillion over the water in I ~~~~the harbor. Such a facility could be used to stage a variety of public events, and could greatly enhance * ~~~~public access to and enjoyment of the harbor. -The completion of the above-mentioned beach/harbor access project at the west side of the harbor area I ~~~~will greatly facilitate public access and enjoyment of the harbor. Sub-croal 3: Increase public access to other beach areas of Loncr Beach. while, as previously mentioned, Long Beach has approximately four miles of sand beaches along its southern border, the beach areas of primary concentration during this study have been those along the approximately one mile waterfront area adjacent to the downtown and to the nearby commercial area along US 90, defined earlier in this study as the Study Area. 86 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cow~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- ee-, 4'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~j~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ fil -Wb - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -cl -Am x\ I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5A U ~~~~~~~~~~~PHASE 2 PHASE I -- 5. 11-- A1t0' B-1 33 S t 00., $107 365I 0.00 k 34.'0.n95 SY 20.0 8' Astor l~~~~ ~ ~~~~1.n340 IF 50.00 1,7(0.00 8'5... d Fo.IC 0.i 8950 IF Itoo -7- TOTAL OS6TR1~~~~~~~T106 COST,01D 007,1. 00 M. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'- --_ I,700 TrOIIIC S1'.olnO ~~~~~~~~3405 IF 00.0 TOTAL COTRtWTI COS T, 0172,415.00 CONSRMION CMI~GEMIS, 4200 O N TOTAL PRJEfCT COT, PHASE 11, 210,3474.00 sS S P C.,b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~UTLT PLA 106 1 0. 0 0.00~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~GRE RUSEL & SOITS0NC108017 LOKIG ~~~~~~~~P~~~L.M IC ITUCIO CONSUTING ENCINERS, 901 "6-06 -8 The beaches within the Study Area generally fall within the waterfront area previously identified in the Sand Beach I ~~~Master Plan* as the waterfront area within the City with the highest potential for public usage. In that plan, beach areas throughout Harrison and Hancock Counties were categorized regarding their potential and suitability for varying levels of public usage. The primary Study Area beaches fall within the Harbor Planning Unit of the Sand Beach Master Plan, which is designated as a Category I area. I ~~~Category I areas in the plan are selected areas judged to be suitable for high intensity usage by the public, and for new facility development. The suggested activities discussed previously in this study are consistent with the recommendations of that plan. (* The Sand Beach Master Plan was prepared in 1985-86 through the collaborative efforts of the Sand Beach Planning Team. The planning team consisted of: Ralph M. Field Associates, Inc. ; Design Consortium, Ltd. ; Gulf Coast Research Laboratory; Robert G. Dean, Sc. D.; Mississippi Law Research Institute; and, Southern I ~~~Mississippi Planning and Development District. Major funding for the study was provided by a grant to Harrison County from the Mississippi Department of Wildlife I ~~~Conservation through its Bureau of Marine Resources.) Beaches along the remaining three miles of Long Beach waterfront were generally classified as Category III areas, I ~~or areas for which increased used should not be encouraged by the development of new user facilities. The area between the seawall and US 90 between Runnels Avenue and Girard I ~~Avenue, however was classified as a Category II "opportunity" area for new facility development. That area is one of only a few areas in the entire two-county planning area with enough open space between the highway and the seawall to allow for the development of beach-related parking and facilities. It is recommended that the City develop facilities to improve access to beach areas I ~~throughout the City in accordance with the principles and concepts brought forth in the Sand Beach Master Plan. An except from the Sand Beach Master Plan which identifies I ~~~recommended use levels and developments along Long Beach's beaches included herein as Attachment A. In order to provide access to other beach areas of the City, I ~~~the following objective was developed. I ~~~~~~~~~objective -Work with the Harrison County Board of Supervisors and I ~~~~the Sand Beach Authority to obtain the necessary funding to implement the development of beach-user facilities in the area between the seawall and US 90 between Runnels and Girard Avenues as recommended in the Sand Beach Master Plan. Care should be taken in the design phase of the project to blend the facility development inobtrusively with the existing character I ~~~~of the area. Specifically, parking and other user facilities should be designed in harmony with existing vegetation, particularly trees. Character and visual I ~~~~appeal need not be sacrificed for functionality. * ~~~Goal 4. Improve access to the City of Long Beach. It is vital for the accomplishment of each of the goals mentioned in this study, that access to the City of Long Beach be improved. While access from neighboring cities from the east and west is provided by US 90, access from more inland areas of the U ~~~County is relatively inconvenient. Access from Gulfport, otherthan via US 90, is provided primarily by Railroad Street, Old Pass Road and 28th Street. Railroad Street I ~~~provides fairly convenient access to the commercial areas of the City from the extreme western portion of Gulfport. Old Pass Road also provides limited access to the City from the west Gulfport area, but travels through primarily residential areas and is inconvenient to the commercial areas of the City. The primary access route to the City from other major residential areas of the County from the northeast is along 28th Street and Klondyke. This route follows two-laned roads which are often in disrepair, inadequately marked and signed, and not conducive to popular use as major thoroughfares. This route is also not convenient to the commercial areas of Long Beach. * ~~Access to the City from residential areas in the western portion of the County, other than via US 90, is even more limited - primarily to Pineville Road, which provides limited access from nearby areas northwest of the City, and I ~~to Beatline Road, which provides access from more remote areas north of the City, and to motorists traveling 1-10. Pineville Road is a narrow two-laned road which winds I ~~~through several residential and minor commercial areas, and is inadequately marked and signed, with no shoulders in most areas. Beatline Road also is a two-laned road, with no I ~~shoulders in many areas, which is also inadequately marked and signed. 89 There are two exits on 1-10 available to travelers to the City of Long Beach, the Long Beach/Pass Christian Exit I ~~~northwest of the City, and the Canal Road Exit northeast of the City. Access from these exits is limited to one route originating at each of those exits. Access from the Long Beach/Pass Christian Exit is along Beatline Road, which provides fairly direct access to the extreme western portion of the City, but is not convenient to the commercial areas. To get to the City f rom the Canal Road Exit, the motorist I ~~must follow Canal Road south to 28th Street, then travel west along 28th Street to Klondyke Road, which will eventually deliver the traveler fairly close to the major commercial areas of the City. In essence, while there are routes to the City from the inland areas of the County, and from 1-10, they do not offer convenient enough access to encourage potential shoppers and visitors to make the trek to Long Beach commercial areas in sufficient numbers to substantially contribute to the City's economy. Public transportation to and in the City of Long Beach is very limited, with regular fixed-route trolley service provided along US 90 only on Fridays through Sundays during the summer months. Additionally, there is demand-responsive transit service available to the handicapped and elderly by I ~~~calling in their request a day in advance. Also, there is another very limited public transit service being offered on an experimental basis. That service is primarily geared to I ~~Jefferson Davis Jr. College students, but is available to the public as well, providing round-trip transit from Pass Christian to the college campus and Edgewater Mall. U ~~To improve the City's accessibility both in terms of vehicular traffic and the availability of public transit, * ~~~the following sub-goals were developed. Sub-croal 1: Provide more convenient access from 1-10. As discussed earlier, access from 1-10, particularly to the I ~~urban waterfront area, is indirect and inconvenient. it is important that the City becomes more accessible to interstate travelers to increase its tourism potential. The following objectives were developed to improve the City's accessibility from 1-10. 90 I ~~~~~~~~~obiectives -Approach the Highway Department to either rename the Canal Road Exit or modify its name to include "Long Beach". -Encourage the County to expedite proposed improvements, including widening, of Canal Road south of 1-10, and to provide signage along that road to direct motorists to Long Beach. -Work with the Harrison County Board of Supervisors, I ~~~the City of Gulfport, and the Harrison County Development Commission to implement improvements to 28th Street. The street desperately needs to be I ~~~widened, have shoulders constructed, have proper striping installed and to be provided with directional signs. -Provide directional signs along Klondyke Road to the downtown and waterfront areas. -The City should encourage the County to initiate a project, as proposed in the Harrison County Major I ~~~Thoroughfare Plan, to extend Airport Boulevard westward, running south of the DuPont rail spur to Canal Road. Such a project would provide another I ~~~major east-west arterial which would allow considerably more convenient access to Long Beach from Highway 49. -The City should investigate the feasibility of I ~~~~extending Klondyke Road northward to intersect either with Canal Road south of 1-10, or with a possible extension of the above-mentioned project. This would greatly improve the City's accessibility from 1-10, and should be considered in the near future while there is still relatively little development through the area in which property for right-of-way would have to be acquired. -The City should encourage the County to implement a project to widen and make other improvements to I ~~~~Beatline Road from I-10 to the City. Proper striping, shoulders and directional signage are much needed * ~~~~along this road. Sub-aoal 2: Imnrove access to the City from other areas of the Countv. While it is important to improve access to the City for 1-10 travelers, it is even more important to make Long Beach accessible to residents of other areas of the County. While the I-10 access improvements suggested earlier will also I ~~increase accessibility to the City for residents of other cities and outlying areas of the County, it is important that other arterials for local traffic be developed and\or I ~~upgraded. The following objectives were developed to accomplish this sub-goal. 91 Obl ectives -The City should support the proposed development of a major east-west arterial parallel with the CSX railroad from Biloxi through Pass Christian. Such a project would provide badly needed relief to US 90, and would greatly facilitate traffic movement among all four affected cities. -The City should work with the City of Gulfport and I ~~~~Harrison County to implement improvements to 28th Street, as discussed earlier. -The City should encourage the County to initiate the I ~~~~previously mentioned project to build a new major arterial extending Airport Road from Highway 49 to Canal Road along the DuPont rail spur. -The City should stress the maintenance of all major thoroughfares entering the City. While major improvements to those streets will often be limited by municipal budgetary constraints, some of the lower I ~~~~cost improvements such as signage, striping and cleaning should be undertaken and maintained. -The City should work closely with Coast Area Transit to increase the availability of public transit to and in the City. -The City should endorse and support the proposed * ~~~~revival of passenger rail service to the area. As mentioned earlier, it is recommended that the Long Beach Urban Waterfront Advisory Committee should continue meeting I ~~regularly promote and sustain the activities necessary to accomplish the goals and objectives set forth herein. I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~9 I I I I I I I APPENDIX A I Excerpt from the Sand Beach Masterplan I I I IX I I I I I CHAPTER FOUR: LONG BEACH This chapter includes recommended management policies and development concepts for each of the following planning units in the City of Long Beach: � Long Beach West Planning Unit I Long Beach Harbor Planning Unit * Long Beach East Planning Unit New facilities including a pavilion/restroom/shower/concession area plus an organized parking area are recommended south of the highway between Runnels and Girard Ave. New facility development designed to enhance existing harbor facilities and create a high use recreational activity center is recommended for the Long Beach small craft harbor and adjacent beach areas. 94+ LONG BEACH WEST PLANNING UNIT Management Categories: New Facility Development (Activity Center) Beach Conservation U ~~~This planning unit extends from the western corporate limits of Long Beach to Girard Avenue which is just west of the Ramada Inn. The beach supports a low to moderate intensity of use. I ~~~The beachfront development north of Highway 90 includes single and multiple-family residences. Most of the shorefront in this area - from White Harbor Road to West Avenue - is zoned for multiple-family development. Some relatively large tracts of undeveloped land currently zoned for multiple-family use are also found along the shorefront, particularly in the area between Marcie Drive and Runnels Avenue. The westernmost section of the planning unit (between the corporate limits and Markham Road) is also largely undeveloped and a section of this area is zoned "Neighborhood Commercial". I ~~~Between Runnels Avenue and Girard Avenue there is a wide unpaved area between the highway and the seawall which is currently used for beach parking. Across Highway I ~~~90 from this area are single family homes and condominiums. The shorefront zoning here includes both "medium density" and "multiple-family" residential districts. The State Highway Department, as it proceeds with its plans to improve Highway 90, has identified the wide area between the highway and seawall as an opportunity area for adding new, paved parking space. Management Policies Two separate management categories are designated in this area. (See Figure 15.) The I ~~~area between the highway and seawall between Runnels Avenue and Girard Avenue should be considered an "opportunity area" for Category If new facility development. * ~~~This "opportunity area" is one of only a few such sites in the entire planning area which provide an open space between Highway 90 and the seawall wide enough to accommodate new beach-related facilities and parking space. New facility development here should include a pavilion/restroom/shower/concession area plus an organized parking 95 I area. (See Figure 26.) Preparation of detailed development plans for this area should precede and be coordinated with future State Highway Department plans to construct paved parking space here. The area west of Runnels Avenue, extending to the western Corporate limits, is designated Category III. Erosion control and beach stabilization measures to control wind-blown sand in both the Category II and III areas should consist of vegetated dunes. "Opportunity Area" Between the Highway and Seawall 96 OAK TREE PLANTING PEwodETrIAN WALKWA I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~PINE TREES SHRUB PLANTING it ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~PARKING AREA U ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~VEGETATED DUNE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i FLOWERING ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~* TR ETOMISOE OCSIN I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~E* FIGURE 26: OPPORTUNITY AREA DEVELOPMENT NORTH OF SEAWALL (CATEGORY Hl) 97 LONG BEACH HARBOR PLANNING UNIT Management Category: New Facility Development (High Use Activity Center) This planning unit includes the Long Beach Small Craft Harbor as well as the beach areas adjacent to the west and east sides of the harbor. The current intensity of beach use in these areas is moderate. The planning unit is bounded on the west by Girard Avenue and on the east by Nicholson Street. The beachfront development along Highway 90 is primarily highway commercial-type development and includes the Ramada Inn. The shorefront zoning is "Highway Commercial". The small craft harbor provides a public boat launch and fishing pier as well as harbor facilities for commercial fishing and pleasure craft. Some limited parking space is available within the harbor and along the shoulder of the highway east of the harbor. In the stretch of highway near the harbor between Jeff Davis Avenue and Cleveland Avenue, the seawall is adjacent to, and higher than the roadway and therefore no parking is possible here. There is a small parking bay across the highway from the Ramada Inn. :1 Long Beach Small Craft Harbor 98 Management Policies Similar to the Pass Christian Harbor planning unit, this planning unit presents an opportunity for new facility development and the establishment of a focal area for higher intensity recreational activities. The extension of the harbor into the Mississippi Sound acts as a littoral blockage and stabilizing influence on the beach to the updrift or eastern side. The beach in this area should be utilized to accommodate both new facility development as well as 'expanded parking. New facilities to be developed should include restrooms, showers, a concession area and small picnic pavilions. (See Figure 27.) Due to the high-intensity use anticipated for this area, biennial sand relocation and recontouring of the beach profile should be used to control wind-blown sand. I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~9 - OAK TREE PLANTING --BEACH CONCESSION -VEGETATED DUNE -RESTROOM / SHOWER / CONCESSION YACHT CLUB COMPLEX PARKING AREAS CHAMBER BUILDING "I;r',/ _________ ________ _ _ -RESTROOM/PN STRUCTURE IMPROVED BOAT LAUNCH -----B--A---H C..N HARBOR MASTER & FUEL DOCK -- FISHING PIER FIGURE 27: LONG BEACH HARBOR AND BEACH DEVELOPMENT (CATEGORY D) LONG BEACH EAST PLANNING UNIT Management Category: I ~~~~~~~~~~Beach Conservation This planning unit includes the beachfront extending from Nicholson Street to the eastern corporate limits of Long Beach. Moving from west to east, the shorefront development north of Highway 90 includes some highway commercial development, the University of Southern Mississippi's Gulf Park Campus, and single family homes. With the exception of a small "Highway-Commercial" zone, the zoning is "Residential - Single Family". The intensity of beach use ranges from low to moderate. The university does maintain I ~~~a large private pier, but the campus is not a residential campus and, since courses are held in the evening, the beach is not well-used by students during, the day. There are a few small parking bays in the planning unit, and beach users also park between the parking bays on the sand between the highway and the, seawall. I ~ ~~~~~~~~USM Gulf Park Campus Pier I ~~Management Policies I ~~~This area is not designated for new recreational facility development or increased recreational use. Erosion control and beach stabilization measures to control wind- * ~~~blown sand should consist of vegetated dunes. 101 I I I I I I I ~~~~APPENDIX B I I I I It .'{I0 . I I I I I I I I OWNERS REPORT BY PARCEL IDENTIFICATION IUNBERS SURVEY CONDUCTED = JUL 1991 PAGE NUMBER: 1 PRIMARY USE CODES: 1 = OFFICE, 2 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, 3 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING, 4 = RETAIL SALES 5= STORAGE, 6 CITY, 7 COUNTY, 8 STATE, 9 FEDERAL, 10 = HOTEL/MOTEL 11 = SCHOOLS, 12 VACANT LOT, 13 = PARKING, 14 NOT FOR PROFIT, 15 = RESTAURANT/LOUNGE 16 = VACANT BUILDING, 17 = PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC, 18 FINANCE, INSURANCE, REAL ESTATE 19 = TRANSPORTATION, COMNUNICATIONS, UTILITIES, 20 = STORAGE NON-ESSENTIAL, 21 = ATTORNEYS 22 FRATERNAL PARCEL ID NO OWNER PRIMARY SQUARE OFF STREET ON STREET TOTAL PARKING USE FOOTAGE PARKING PARKING EACH BLOCK 612A-03-0O1.000 OSGOOD GUY & WF 2 1000 0 0 612A-03-002.OWO ALLEN JAMES R SR & DI 2 1200 0 0 612A-03-003.000 HAVERSTROH BESSIE F 2 1000 0 0 612A-03-004.000 JAMES MYRL 1 2 1000 0 0 612A-03-005.000 TAYLOR AGNESS B 2 1400 0 0 612A-03-007.000 SCLAFANI GEO J & WF 16 175 10 0 612A-03-008.000 RAFKIN M DAVID & MARY 2 2500 0 0 612A-03-008.000 2 1700 0 0 612A-03-010.000 MILLARD JAN1ET 2 1500 0 0 612A-03-011.000 HENDERSON CHARLES K & 2 3000 0 0 612A-03-014.000 MACKAY JOHN D & JOANN 2 1600 0 0 612A-03-015.000 HANDAL EDITH E 2 1700 0 0 612A-03-016.000 TROESCHER WM G JR & W 2 1000 0 0 612A-03-017.000 HADEN G K & WF 2 1200 0 0 TOTAL PARKING THIS BLOCK 10 0 10 612A-03-018.000 MAXWELL J 1 JR & WF 2 1400 0 0 612A-03-019.000 PIPER HAROLD E & JACQ 2 1100 0 0 612A-03-020.000 WILLIAMS PAUL A & WF 2 1600 0 0 612A-03-021.000 GOOLSBY MARY TRUAX 2 3000 0 0 612A-03-022.000 GRIFFITH CLAYTON C 6 2 3000 0 0 612A-03-023.000 SCHIRO GEORGE L & LOR 2 2600 0 0 612A-03-024,000 FIORE THOMAS & CHEMAN 2 2100 0 0 612A-03-025.000 GROVE KENNETH 2 1800 0 0 612A-03-026.000 BERRY E 0 & THEDA P 2 3500 0 0 612A-03-027.000 WARD WAYNE N & WF 2 3100 0 0 612A-03-028.O00 GODFREY GERALD & WF 12 23900 0 0 612A-03-029.000 ROSEMEIER VERNON L 2 1800 0 0 612A-03-030.000 MITCH HANS J & WF 2 1800 0 0 612A-03-031.000 CHARTER BANK FSB 2 1600 0 0 612A-03-033.000 GETMAR CHARLES & WF 2 2800 0 0 612A-03-034.000 PERSON VELMA 5 2 1600 0 0 612A-03-034.001 PEARSON JOHN H 12 16800 0 0 612A-03-034.002 PEARSON JOHN E 2 1200 0 0 612A-03-035.000 JOHNSON R H & WF 2 1600 0 0 612A-03-036.000 LISHEN R E & WF 2 1100 0 0 612A-03-037.000 FERNANDEZ E J 2 1100 0 0 612A-03-038.000 LEHMAN GERRE E 2 800 0 0 612A-03-039.000 SHERIDAN GEORGE J JR 2 1300 0 0 612A-03-040.000 CUEVAS CAROL 2 1800 0 0 612A-03-041.000 FAYARD HELEN 2 2500 0 0 612A-03-042.000 NIOLET DOUGLAS F & VI 2 1500 0 0 TOTAL PARKING THIS BLOCK 0 0 0 104 OIb�ERS REPORT BY PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS SURVEY CONDUCTED = JUL 1991 PAGE NUMBER: 2 PRIMARY USE CODES: 1 = OFFICE, 2 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, 3 = MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING, 4 = RETAIL SALES 5 STORAGE, 6 CITY, 7 COUNTY, 8 STATE, 9 = FEDERAL, 10 HOTEL/MOTEL 11 = SCHOOLS, 12 = VACANT LOT, 13 = PARKING, 14 NOT FOR PROFIT, 15 = RESTAURANT/LUIGE 16 = VACANT BUILDING, 17 = PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC, 18 FINANCE, INSURANCE, REAL ESTATE 19 TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS, UTILITIES, 20 STORAGE NON-ESSENTIAL, 21 ATTORNEYS 22 FRATERNAL PARCEL ID NO OWNER PRIMARY SQUARE OFF STREET ON STREET TOTAL PARKING USE FOOTAGE PARKING PARKING EACH BLOCK 612A-03-043.000 FRERICHS HARRY J 2 1200 0 0 612A-03-043. 000 2 800 0 0 612A-03-044.000 KELANDER DENNIS & KAT 2 1200 0 0 612A-03-045.00O RAMEY MICHAEL A & KAR 2 1100 0 0 612A-03-046.000 THOMPSON WM & NANCY 2 2000 0 0 612A-03-047.000 DICKENS CARROL L & WF 2 2200 0 0 TOTAL PARKING THIS BLOCK 0 0 0 612A-03-048.000 MCCURRY KATIE W ETAL 12 12400 0 0 612A-03-049.000 KITCHINGS B J 6 WF 1 2000 10 0 612A-03-050.000 STEEN THOMAS E & WF 2 1900 0 0 612A-03-051.000 ALLEN CORRINE Y 2 2600 0 0 TOTAL PARKING THIS BLOCK 10 0 10 612A-03-052.000 MITCHELL LOUIS A & WF 2 2400 0 0 612A-03-053.000 BORDLEE JOYCE 5 2 1900 0 0 612A-03-054.000 GIUFFRIA SALVADOR & W 2 3200 0 0 612A-03-055.000 LUMPKIN L C & WF 2 1500 0 0 TOTAL PARKING THIS BLOCK 0 0 0 612A-03-056.000 SATCHFIELD BLDRS INC 1 4410 25 0 612A-03-059.001 BUGUOI D JOYCE 2 1500 0 0 TOTAL PARKING THIS BLOCK 25 0 25 612A-03-060.000 HARE ROBERT E 2 1800 0 0 612A-03-061.O00 LA PLACE DE LA HER TO 3 0 40 0 612A-03-061.001 TOOP EILEEN J 3 1500 0 0 612A-03-061.002 PILCHER JERALD W 4 WF 3 1500 0 0 612A-03-061.003 ARKANINI MARIO L & WF 3 1500 0 0 612A-03-061.004 MALLETTE MILBUIRN R 3 1500 0 0 612A-03-061.005 9OLSTROH ERIK K 3 1500 0 0 612A-03-061.006 GIANI MARIO P 3 1500 0 0 612A-03-061.007 SIMMONS BOBBY H 3 1500 0 0 612A-03-061.008 FOWLER BARBARA E 3 1500 0 0 612A-03-061.009 EVANS KATHERINE R 3 1500 0 0 612A-03-061.010 HART ELIZABETH J 3 1500 0 0 612A-03-061.O11 WOLLSCHLAGER GENEVA K 3 1500 0 0 612A-03-061.012 DUGAS DONALD L & MAE 3 1500 0 0 612A-03-061.013 WOODARD EVEL P 3 1500 0 0 612A-03-061.014 SOUBIE MARK A ETAL 3 1500 0 0 612A-03-061.015 ERADAR PHILIP H 3 1500 0 0 612A-03-061.016 SMITH STANLEY 3 1500 0 0 612A-03-061.017 NELSON FRED L JR & HF 3 1500 0 0 105 OWNERS REPORT BY PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS SURVEY CONDUCTED = JUL 1991 PAGE NUMBER: 3 PRIMARY USE CODES: 1 = OFFICE, 2 = SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, 3 = MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING, 4 = RETAIL SALES 5 STORAGE, 6 CITY, 7 COUNTY, 8 = STATE, 9 FEDERAL, 10 IIOTEL/HOTEL 11= SCHOOLS, 12 VACANT LOT, 13 = PARKING, 14 NOT FOR PROFIT, 15 = RESTAURANT/LOUNGE 16= VACANT BUILDING, 17 = PUBLIC/SEHI-PUBLIC, 18 = FINANCE, INSURANCE, REAL ESTATE 19= TRANSPORTATION, aN4NUNICATIONS, UTILITIES, 20 STORAGE NON-ESSENTIAL, 21 - ATTORNEYS 22 FRATERNAL PARCEL ID NO OWNER PRIMARY SQUARE OFF STREET ON STREET TOTAL PARKING USE FOOTAGE PARKING PARKING EACH BLOCK 612A-03-063.000 FLEMING PAUL A WV 4 2000 5 0 612A-03-064.O0W CAYLOR EUGENE D 12 11250 0 0 612A-03-064.001 BRIGHT JAMES L & WAND 2 3000 0 0 TOTAL PARKING THIS BLOCK 45 0 45 612A-03-065.000 MOORE JOE A & KATHY 2 800 0 0 612A-03-066.000 STEELMAN LAWRENCE E - 15 900 10 0 612A-03-067.000 MANNER WM G & WF 3 2300 4 0 612A-03-068.000 MITCH HANS J 4 2200 10 0 612A-03-069.000 HERRINGTON DAVID & WF 12 15500 0 0 612A-03-069.001 POILLION MARIE G 16 2000 5 0 612A-03-069.002 COHEN, SUZETTE S 4 10500 40 0 612A-03-069.002 COHEN SUZETTE 4 4500 50 0 612A-03-069.003 POILLION MARIE G 4 1500 15 0 612A-03-070.000 POILLION A P & WF 4 6200 0 0 612A-03-071.000 JACKSON GERALDINE D 2 1700 0 0 TOTAL PARKING THIS BLOCK 134 0 134 612B-02-056.000 HOLLIDAY JOHN R 2 1800 0 0 612B-02-057.000 LEATHERWOOD LYNN E & 2 1300 0 0 612B-02-058.000 PINNIX JOHN F & WF 2 1700 0 0 612B-02-059.000 HART STEPHEN R N MART 2 2100 0 0 612B-02-060.000 WARRINGTON JAMES & BE 2 0 0 0 612B-02-061.000 YEOMANS KENNETH H & P 2 1800 0 0 612B-02-062.000 HANMONS FAIRREL D & W 2 1300 0 0 612B-02-063.000 WYLIE MARY C 2 900 0 0 612B-02-064.000 CREEL W F & WF 2 1200 0 0 612B-02-065.000 PATTERSON EDGAR J & W 2 2200 0 0 612B-02-066.000 BROWN DONALD S & JEAN 2 2100 0 0 612B-02-067.000 MCDONALD JOSIE P 2 1900 0 0 612B-02-068.000 WARRINGTON J R 2 1800 0 0 612B-02-069.000 LADNER CATHERINE S 2 1800 0 0 612B-02-070.000 HERTZ PEGGY L 2 1900 0 0 612B-02-071.000 BROWN ANY JOHANSEN 2 2000 0 0 612B-02-072.000 ANDERSON THOMAS L & W 2 1000 0 0 TOTAL PARKING THIS BLOCK 0 0 0 612B-02-073.000 LONG BEACH GARDEN CLU 14 1500 10 0 612B-02-075.000 LOGAN FLOYD J & BERIN 4 15000 30 0 TOTAL PARKING THIS BLOCK 40 0 40 612B-03-001.000 BORZIK THERESA ANN 2 1000 0 0 612B-03-002.000 SPABN LAWRENCE 3RD , 2 680 0 0 106 OWNIERS REPORT BY PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS SURVEY CONDUCTED = JUL 1991 PAGE NUMBER: 4 PRIMARY USE CODES: 1 = OFFICE, 2 = SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, 3 = MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING, 4 = RETAIL SALES 5 = STORAGE, 6 = CITY, 7 = COUNTY, 8 = STATE, 9 = FEDERAL, 10 = HOTEL/MOTEL 11 = SCHOOLS, 12 = VACANT LOT, 13 = PARKING, 14 = NOT FOR PROFIT, 15 = RESTAURANT/LOUNGE 16 = VACANT BUILDING, 17 = PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC, 18 = FINANCE, INSURANCE, REAL ESTATE 19 = TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS, UTILITIES, 20 = STORAGE NION-ESSENTIAL, 21 = ATTORNEYS 22 = FRATERNAL PARCEL ID NO OWNER PRIMARY SQUARE OFF STREET ON STREET TOTAL PARKING USE FOOTAGE PARKING PARKING EACH BLOCK 612B-03-003.000 BARROW ELSIE B 4 1600 15 0 612B-03-004.000 HANCOCK BANK 18 1400 25 0 612B-03-005.000 HART STEPHEN R & HART 18 800 6 0 612B-03-006.000 GAY NW R 4 10000 8 6 612B-03-007.000 LADNER WAYNE & SUSAN 16 3000 10 2 612B-03-007.001 BROWN WAYNE & IRENIE 3 1600 0 2 612B-03-008.000 BAKER H J JR 2 900 0 2 612B-03-009.000 LESTER WALTER G & WF 2 1050 0 2 612B-03-010.000 SNEED JEAN G 12 13500 0 2 612B-03-012.000 MISSISSIPPI POWER CO 19 37500 0 2 612B-03-013.000 GEDDES WILBURT H & WF 1 1200 3 1 612B-03-014.000 HARRIS LEONARD B ETAL 2 2100 0 2 612B-03-014.001 HARRIS LEONARD B ETAL 2 900 0 2 TOTAL PARKING THIS BLOCK 67 23 90 612B-03-015,000 PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 17 5400 0 8 612B-03-016.000 HOLLAND CHARLES E & H 2 1000 0 0 612B-03-017.000 BOOKSH NT JR & WF 2 600 0 0 612B-03-018.000 ENGLISH JAMES C JR 2 1050 0 0 612B-03-019.000 DAVIS OYD W & WF 18 600 0 0 612B-03-020.000 CITY OF LONG BEACH 6 5000 100 0 612B-03-022.000 CITY OF LONG BEACH 6 5000 16 0 612B-03-023.000 FILLINGIH DAVID ETAL 2 1200 0 0 612B-03-024.000 BARNES JOHN R & WF 2 1300 0 0 612B-03-025.000 NIOLET MICHAEL L & WF 1 1500 3 0 612B-03-026.000 GEDDES GLENN E & DIAN 2 800 0 0 612B-03-027.000 SPAYDE FAYE 21 1200 3 0 612B-03-028.000 MCCOOL JOHN H & WF 2 1000 0 0 612B-03-029.000 SPAYDE FAYE 2 0 0 0 612B-03-029.001 SPAYDE FAYE 2 1000 0 0 612B-03-030.000 SPAYDE BARBARA F 2 1200 0 0 TOTAL PARKING THIS BLOCK 122 8 130 612B-03-031.000 TOWNI OF LONG BEACH 11 13000 52 0 612B-03-032.000 MASON MILDRED H 2 2000 0 0 612B-03-033.000 ALQUIRE DAVID T & CON 2 800 0 0 612B-03-033,001 MCMICHAEL SARA 2 1200 0 0 612B-03-034.000 FLEMING ETHEL H 2 800 0 0 612B-03-035.000 PARKER JOYCE C 2 800 0 0 TOTAL PARKING THIS BLOCK 52 0 52 612B-03-036.000 HEROLD MERLIN C & WF 2 1400 0 0 612B-03-037.000 DAVID RONALD T & WF 2 1300 0 0 612B-03-038.000 BENJAMIN MARY D 2 1600 0 0 107 OWNERS REPORT BY PARCEL IDENTIFICATION hNUBERS SURVEY CONDUCTED = JUL 1991 PAGE NUMBER: 5 PRIMARY USE CODES: 1 = OFFICE, 2 = SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, 3 = MULTI-FkMILY DWELLING, 4 = RETAIL SALES 5 = STORAGE, 6 = CITY, 7 = COUNTY, 8 = STATE, 9 = FEDERAL, 10 = HOTEL/HOTEL 11 = SCHOOLS, 12 = VACANT LOT, 13 = PARKING, �14 = NOT FOR PROFIT, 15 = RESTAURANT/LOUNGE 16 = VACANT BUILDING, 17 = PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC, 18 = FINANCE, INSURANCE, REAL ESTATE 19 = TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS, UTILITIES, 20 = STORAGE NON-ESSENTIAL, 21 = ATTORNEYS 22 = FRATERNAL PARCEL ID NO OWNER PRIMARY SQUARE OFF STREET ON STREET TOTAL PARKING USE FOOTAGE PARKING PARKING EACH BLOCK 612B-03-039.000 GREGORY CHARLES E & W 12 7950 0 0 612B-03-040.000 BARNETT LUCILLE B 2 1700 0 0 612B-03-041.000 BATES ROBERT H JR & J 2 3000 0 0 612B-03-041.001 BATES BATES BATES PAR 12 8000 0 0 612B-03-042.000 BATES ROBERT H JR 2 1350 0 0 612B-03-043.000 DEEGEN UWE F 2 2000 0 0 612B-03-044.000 JOHNSON L J & WF 2 1100 0 0 612B-03-045.000 KLEIN HERBERT H JR 2 600 0 0 612B-03-046.000 VERDIGETS J J & WF 2 2500 0 0 612B-03-047.000 HORSE JEFFERY K 2 1100 0 0 612B-03-048.000 ROBERSON PEGGY H 2 1100 0 0 612B-03-049.000 COATS S LLOYD & WF 4 1200 2 1 612B-03-050.000 ROBERTSON JAMES A SR 2 1400 0 0 612B-03-051.000 MEEK GEORGE W 2 700 0 0 612B-03-051.001 BARRALE ROSE 2 700 0 0 612B-03-052.000 SPAYDE FAYE 3 2500 2 0 612B-03-053.000 WILSON HAROLD E & JAM 4 7500 14 0 612B-03-054.000 SWENSON JEAN ANNE 16 2000 4 0 612B-03-055.000 PINE BELT SERV INC 18 2700 22 0 612B-03-055.001 RILEY JACK & WF 4 2100 4 0 TOTAL PARKING THIS BLOCK 48 1 49 612B-03-056.000 ELIAS LILLIE K 4 2000 6 4 612B-03-057.000 MAGEE T B & WF 4 7500 5 0 612B-03-058.000 CARPENTER MARVIN L & 4 8250 13 2 612B-03-058.001 GIUFFRIA S F & WF 4 12050 0 4 TOTAL PARKING THIS BLOCK 24 10 34 612B-03-059.000 HARDY COURT SHOPPING 15 1575 15 0 612B-03-060.000 ILLICH R J & WF 4 800 1 0 612B-03-061.000 PEDEN R L & ALVA 17 7200 30 0 612B-03-062.000 SKELLIE WM D G SR 12 6000 0 0 612B-03-063.000 TOWN OF LONG BEACH 6 2200 0 0 612B-03-064.000 SKELLIE WN D G 4 4450 6 0 612B-03-065.000 SOUTHERN STAR LODGE 16 8100 0 3 612B-03-066.000 PHAN DONG & LIEN TRIN 4 6100 3 0 612B-03-067.000 PHAM DONG & LEIN TRIN 12 3420 0 0 612B-03-068.000 ASHCRAFT JOHN D JR & 16 1000 25 2 612B-03-070-000 LACOSTE STEVE 4 1250 6 0 612B-03-071-000 ENGLISH JAMES C 4 2500 10 0 612B-03-071.001 CTY DEVELOPMENT 4 9000 8 0 612B-03-072-000 SIKHONS ROBERT L ETAL 12 78408 0 0 612B-03-073-000 SIMMONS ROBERT L & WF 2 1200 0 0 612B-03-074-000 TOWN OF LONG BEACH 17 69696 0 0 612B-03-075-000 PYBASS LAURA CAMPBELL 2 800 0 0 108 OWINERS REPORT BY PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS SURVEY CONDUCTED = JUL 1991 PAGE IUMBER: 6 PRIMARY USE CODES: 1 = OFFICE, 2 = SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, 3 = MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING, 4 = RETAIL SALES 5 = STORAGE, 6 = CITY, 7 = COUNTY, 8 = STATE, 9 = FEDERAL, 10 = HOTEL/HOTEL 11 = SCHOOLS, 12 = VACANT LOT, 13 = PARKING, 14 = NOT FOR PROFIT, 15 = RESTAURANT/LOUNGE 16 = VACANT BUILDING, 17 = PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC, 18 = FINANCE, INSURANCE, REAL ESTATE 19 = TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS, UTILITIES, 20 = STORAGE IlON-ESSENTIAL, 21 = ATTORNEYS 22 = FRATERNAL PARCEL ID NO OWNER PRIMARY SQUARE OFF STREET ON STREET TOTAL PARKING USE FOOTAGE PARKING PARKING EACH BLOCK 612B-03-076-000 PATTERSON ROBERT A 2 1200 0 0 612B-03-077-000 BRUWBELOW MARY V HERR 2 1200 0 0 612B-03-078-000 MESSER LOUIS L & WF 2 800 0 0 612B-03-079-000 NAZARETIAN GEO L 2 1200 0 0 612B-03-080-000 COBB HAROLD C & LANNE 2 2000 0 0 612B-03-080.001 COBB HAROLD C & LANNE 2 2500 0 0 612B-03-081-000 LANCASTER EDITH DAVIS 2 2500 0 0 TOTAL PARKING THIS BLOCK 104 5 109 612B-03-082-000 TRIPLETT HARTHA & PAR 2 2400 0 0 612B-03-083-000 CULLINAN WH C 2 900 0 0 612B-03-084-000 PLATTS CHRISTINE N 2 1200 0 0 612B-03-085-000 PLATTS CHRISTINE N 2 375 0 0 612B-03-086-000 REILLY J P & WP 2 1500 0 0 612B-03-087-000 LEWIS WENDALL C & ETl 2 1200 0 0 612B-03-088-000 FENNELL GERALD 0 2 1000 0 0 612B-03-091-000 BOGAN JEAN 2 1750 0 0 612B-03-092-000 DAUTO PAUL G & WF 2 1200 0 0 612B-03-093-000 LEHBRIGHT CHARLES F & 2 2000 0 0 612B-03-094-000 CUEVAS BRUCE W ETAL 2 600 0 0 612B-03-095-000 HERSHBERGER JACK R & 2 2000 0 0 612B-03-096-000 RYAN PATRICIA A 2 1200 0 0 TOTAL PARKING THIS BLOCK 0 0 0 612F-02-001-000 TERRY BILLIE JOE 2 800 0 0 612F-02-002-000 BERGENHAGEN ROBERT & 2 1800 0 0 612F-02-003-000 BYRNE PETE J 2 1800 0 0 612F-02-004-000 POWELL B F & WF 2 600 0 0 612F-02-005-000 COSPELICH DEIDRE MARI 2 750 0 0 612F-02-006-000 KOENENN ALFRED ETAL 12 113256 0 0 612P-02-007-000 HOWELL BRETT A & SOND 2 1350 0 0 612F-02-008.000 WINK ROBERT S & MI SU 2 1800 0 0 612F-02-009.000 BENTON JIMMIE E & WF 2 1350 0 0 612F-02-010.000 POWELL B F & WF 2 1200 0 0 612F-02-011.000 SWANIER OLIVER G & PA 2 2000 0 0 612F-02-012.000 CLARK BERT E & WF 2 1350 0 0 612F-02-013.000 MAGEE TROY B & WF 2 1600 0 0 612F-02-014.000 COTTEN ENILY (EKMI) 2 640 0 0 612F-02-015.000 HOLZWEISSIG ARTHUR C 2 1050 0 0 612F-02-016.000 LONG BEACH OAKS PARTN 3 100500 0 0 TOTAL PARKING THIS BLOCK 0 0 0 612G-01-001.000 BRESLIN LONG BEACH AS 4 71500 315 0 612G-01-001.000 BRESLIN LONG BEACH AS 4 16000 0 0 109 OWNIERS REPORT BY PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS SURVEY COlNDUCTED = JUL 1991 PAGE NUMBER: 7 PRIMARY USE CODES: 1 = OFFICE, 2 = SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, 3 = MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING, 4 = RETAIL SALES 5 = STORAGE, 6 =CITY, 7 = COUNTY, 8 = STATE, 9 = FEDERAL, 10 = HOTEL/MOTEL 11 = SCHOOLS, 12 = VACANT LOT, 13 = PARKING, 14 = NOT FOR PROFIT, 15 = RESTAURANT/LOUNGE 16 = VACANT BUILDING, 17 = PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC, 18 = FINANCE, INSURANCE, REAL ESTATE 19 = TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS, UTILITIES, 20 = STORAGE NON-ESSENTIAL, 21 = ATTORNEYS 22 = FRATERNAL PARCEL ID NO OWNER PRIMARY SQUARE OFF STREET ON STREET TOTAL PARKING USE FOOTAGE PARKING PARKING EACH BLOCK TOTAL PARKING THIS BLOCK 315 0 315 612G-01-003.000 RR MORRISON & SON INC 4 1800 30 0 612G-01-004.000 MITCH HANS J 1 1400 10 0 612G-01-005.000 BROWN HP JR ETAL 4 600 0 0 612G-01-006.000 NEBLETT G RIVES 12 13830 0 0 612G-01-007.000 BEARD GRADY L JR & NA 4 1200 8 0 612G-01-008.000 BROWN DANNY R 6 JANIS 3 3000 0 0 612G-01-009.000 CRESSY ANN P 2 1300 0 0 612G-01-010.000 MARTIN RONALD S & DEC 2 1500 0 0 612G-01-011.001 WILSON LLOYD & ELEANO 12 3600 0 0 612G-01-012.000 BAIRD KAREN 2 1100 0 0 612G-01-013.000 MITCHELL GERALD G & R 2 1200 0 0 612G-01-014.000 MITCHELL G G & WF 2 1200 0 0 612G-01-015.000 MERCHANTS BANK & TRUS 18 1500 30 0 612G-01-016.000 RIEMANN RH ETAL 4 1600 22 0 612G-01-017.000 MITHCELL GERALD G & D 2 1100 0 0 612G-01-018.000 MITCHELL MILDRED ETAL 16 19500 72 0 612G-01-018.001 MITCHELL MILDRED ETAL 4 1000 10 0 612G-01-019.000 COMMERCIAL PROP DEV C 15 10000 20 0 612G-01-019.001 MITCHELL GERALD G & R 12 25500 0 0 612G-01-019.002 L B C INC 4 600 10 0 612G-01-020.000 MC RAE RICHARD D 3 39906 200 0 TOTAL PARKING THIS BLOCK 412 0 412 612G-02-001.000 ELIAS MRS LILLIE K 12 400 3 0 612G-02-002.000 DUBUISSON MARGARET E 4 1200 3 0 612G-02-003.000 WATTS EDW & WF 2 1250 0 0 612G-02-004.000 GIRARD MELVILLE R JR 2 900 0 0 612G-02-005.000 REAVES JAMES E ETAL 3 1200 0 0 612G-02-006.000 CITY OF LONG BEACH 6 1000 3 0 612G-02-009.000 FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH 17 1350 2 0 612G-02-010.000 1ST BAPTIST CHURCH OF 17 2100 6 0 612G-02-011.000 WARD WAYNE K & WF 12 11250 0 0 612G-02-012.000 ELIAS LILLIE K 4 2000 3 0 612G-02-013.000 WARD WAYNE M & WF 4 4100 6 0 612G-02-014.000 ELIAS LILLIE K ETAL 4 5000 9 0 TOTAL PARKING THIS BLOCK 35 0 35 612G-02-016.000 SALLOUM MITCHELL JR E 4 37000 150 0 612G-02-017.000 ENGLISH JAMES C 4 960 8 0 612G-02-018.000 FIRST MAGNOLIA FED SA 18 1200 72 0 612G-02-020.000 FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH 17 30000 100 0 612G-02-022.000 S S RESTAURANT CORP 15 2450 90 0 110 O0IJERS REPORT BY PARCEL IDENTIFICATION 1NUMBERS SURVEY CONDUCTED = JUL 1991 PAGE NUMBER: 8 PRIMARY USE CODES: 1 = OFFICE, 2 = SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, 3 = MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING, 4 = RETAIL SALES 5 = STORAGE, 6 = CITY, 7 = COUNTY, 8 = STATE, 9 = FEDERAL, 10 = HOTEL/MOTEL 11 = SCHOOLS, 12 = VACANT LOT, 13 = PARKING, 14 = NOT FOR PROFIT, 15 = RESTAURANT/LOUNGE 16 = VACANT BUILDING, 17 = PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC, 18 = FINANCE, INSURANCE, REAL ESTATE 19 = TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS, UTILITIES, 20 = STORAGE NON-ESSENTIAL, 21 = ATTORNEYS 22 = FRATERNAL PARCEL ID NO OWNER PRIMARY SQUARE OFF STREET ON STREET TOTAL PARKING USE FOOTAGE PARKING PARKING EACH BLOCK 612G-02-025.000 FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH 12 11700 0 0 612G-02-026.000 FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH 12 11700 0 0 612G-02-027.000 MILLER MINNIE ELLEN T 12 11700 0 0 TOTAL PARKING THIS BLOCK 420 0 420 612G-02-029.000 FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH 12 47916 0 0 612G-02-029.001 MAXWELL CAROLYN K 2 2000 0 0 TOTAL PARKING THIS BLOCK 0 0 0 612G-02-030.000 VIDACOVICH MARCELLE R 2 1200 0 0 612G-02-031.000 KUNZ MARY K 2 1200 0 0 612G-02-032.000 LANCASTER J R & SHIRL 2 600 0 0 612G-02-033.000 BARNETT S W & WF 2 1200 0 0 612G-02-034.000 ZOCH JUNE J 2 1000 0 0 612G-02-035.000 WEILBACHER ARMlND E & 12 47900 0 0 612G-02-038.000 AULTMAN MICHAEL D & W 15 1400 40 0 612G-02-040.000 LONGUE VUE TOWNHOUSES 3 0 100 0 612G-02-040.001 MULLINS E C & CARLOTT 3 1186 0 0 612G-02-040.002 BATTY GEORGE B & EVEL 3 1186 0 0 612G-02-040.003 THOMPSON NORMA JEAN 3 1186 0 0 612G-02-040.004 DEL VECCHIO MIRIAM H 3 1186 0 0 6126-02-040.005 LONGUE VUE VENTURE IN 3 1186 0 0 612G-02-040.006 LONGUE VUE VENTURE IN 3 1186 0 0 612G-02-040.007 LONGUE VUE VENTURE IN 3 1186 0 0 612G-02-040.008 LONGUE VUE VENTURE IN 3 1186 0 0 612G-02-040.009 LONGUE VUE VENTURE IN 3 1186 0 0 612G-02-040.010 KNIFFEN ARTHUR LRE IN 3 1186 0 0 612G-02-040.011 MCCOLLUM CHARLES J & 3 1186 0 0 612G-02-040.012 TAFF THOMAS G JR 3 1186 0 0 612G-02-040.013 CHANDLER GARVIN L & W 3 1186 0 0 612G-02-040.014 LANCASTER JOH R & SHI 3 1186 0 0 612G-02-040.015 LONGUE VUE VENTURE IN 3 1186 0 0 612G-02-040.016 CULP PATRICIA J 3 1186 0 0 612G-02-040.017 LONGUE VUE VENTURE IN 3 1186 0 0 612G-02-040.018 LOIIGUE VUE VENTURE IN 3 1186 0 0 612G-02-040.019 PENO ROBERT & MYRNA G 3 1186 0 0 612G-02-040.020 LONGUE WE VENTURE IN 3 1186 0 0 6126-02-040.021 RIBSON GARY & MARGARE 3 1186 0 0 612G-02-040.022 LONGUE VUE VENTURE IN 3 1186 0 0 612G-02-040.023 HOSEY VICTOR & BETTY 3 1186 0 0 612G-02-040.024 LONGUE VWE VENTURE IN 3 1186 0 0 612G-02-040.025 VAN ELSWYK THOMAS J & 3 1186 0 0 612G-02-040.026 DELVECCHIO MIRIAM H 3 1186 0 0 612G-02-040.027 STEVENSON JOEL 4 3 893 0 0 6126-02-040.028 RUSSELL WILLIAM E & L 3 893 0 0 OWNERS REPORT BY PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS SURVEY CONDUCTED = JUL 1991 PAGE NUMBER: 9 PRIMARY USE CODES: 1 = OFFICE, 2 = SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, 3 = MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING, 4 = RETAIL SALES 5 = STORAGE, 6 = CITY, 7 = COUNTY, 8 = STATE, 9 = FEDERAL, 10 = HOTEL/MOTEL 11 = SCHOOLS, 12 = VACANT LOT, 13 = PARKING, 14 = NOT FOR PROFIT, 15 = RESTAURANT/LOU]NGE 16 = VACANT BUILDING, 17 = PUBLIC/SEHI-PUBLIC, 18 F= INANCE, INSURANCE, REAL ESTATE 19 = TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS, UTILITIES, 20 = STORAGE NON-ESSENTIAL, 21 = ATTORNEYS 22 = FRATERNAL PARCEL ID NO OWNER PRIMARY SQUARE OFF STREET ON STREET TOTAL PARKING USE FOOTAGE PARKING PARKING EACH BLOCK 612G-02-040.029 NULLINS CHARLOTTE C 3 893 0 0 612G-02-040.030 EDGAR ALLAN G & ROBER 3 893 0 0 612G-02-040.031 HOEY GRANT ETAL 3 893 0 0 612G-02-040.032 GRAVES JAMES W & ANN 3 893 0 0 612G-02-040.033 LONGUE VUE VENTURE IN 3 893 0 0 612G-02-040.034 KNIFFEN ARTHUR L 3 893 0 0 612G-02-040.035 JOHNSON PATRICIA 3 893 0 0 612G-02-040.036 LONGUE VUE VENTURE IN 3 893 0 0 612G-02-040.037 LONGUE WUE VENTURE IN 3 893 0 0 612G-02-040.038 LONGUE VUE VENTURE IN 3 893 0 0 612G-02-040.039 DANIELS WILLIAM ROBER 3 893 0 0 612G-02-040.040 BOLEJACK CHARLES D & 3 893 0 0 612G-02-040.041 EDWARDS BRIAN & REGIN 3 893 0 0 612G-02-040.042 BURTON ORLIS L & SHEA 3 893 0 0 612G-02-040.043 DYESS JOHN & PATRICIA 3 893 0 0 612G-02-040.044 KNIFFEN ARTHUR L 3 893 0 0 612G-02-040.045 JOHNSON PATRICIA 3 893 0 0 612G-02-040.046 LONGUE VWE VENTURE IN 3 893 0 0 612G-02-040.047 LONGUE VUE VENTURE IN 3 893 0 0 612G-02-040.048 MARKS HELEN M 3 893 0 0 612G-02-040.049 LONGUE VUE VENTURE IN 3 893 0 0 612G-02-040.050 VANDERMARK MARK S & J 3 893 0 0 612G-02-040.051 REID NAOMI H 3 893 0 0 612G-02-040.052 GERALD ROBERT M 3 893 0 0 612G-02-040.053 JOHNSON PATRICIA 3 893 0 0 612G-02-040.054 JOHNSON PATRICIA 3 893 0 0 612G-02-042.000 LONG BEACH ASSOC 10 48000 140 0 612G-02-042.001 KOENENN ALFRED R ETAL 12 126000 0 0 612G-02-044.000 SIMS ELLEN A 2 1000 0 0 612G-02-045.000 SCAFIDE ARTHUR A JR & 2 2400 0 0 612G-02-046.000 NAZARETIAN EDMOND & W 4 5600 15 0 612G-02-047.000 WILSON LARRY L & KATH 2 1000 0 0 612G-02-048.000 ANDERSON STANLEY & WF 2 1350 0 0 TOTAL PARKING THIS BLOCK 295 0 295 612G-02-049.000 DORCESTER WEST INC 3 10000 30 0 612G-02-049.001 LEVENS JAMES E JR & H 16 3500 10 0 612G-02-050.000 JOHNSON THEODORE S 1 31450 0 0 612G-02-050.001 SALISBURY HOYT S & VI 2 1200 0 0 TOTAL PARKING THIS BLOCK 40 0 40 612H-01-002.000 SAVARESE JEFFREY L & 4 1600 15 0 TOTAL PARKING THIS BLOCK 15 0 15 112 6ONERS REPORT BY PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS SURVEY CONDUCTED = JUL 1991 PAGE INUBER: 10 PRIMARY USE CODES: 1 = OFFICE, 2 = SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, 3 = MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING, 4 = RETAIL SALES 5 =STORAGE, 6 =CITY, 7 = COUNTY, 8 = STATE, 9 = FEDERAL, 10 = HOTEL/MOTEL 11 = SCHOOLS, 12 = VACANT LOT, 13 = PARKING, 14 = NOT FOR PROFIT, 15 = RESTAURANT/LOUNGE 16 = VACANT BUILDING, 17 = PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC, 18 = FINANCE, INSURANCE, REAL ESTATE 19 = TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS, UTILITIES, 20 =STORAGE NON-ESSENTIAL, 21 = ATTORNEYS 22 = FRATERNAL PARCEL ID NO OWNER PRIMARY SQUARE OFF STREET ON STREET TOTAL PARKING USE FOOTAGE PARKING PARKING EACH BLOCK 612H-01-003.000 BUQUOI F E & WF 4 21000 15 0 612H-01-004.000 MCDONALD'S CORP 15 2500 50 0 TOTAL PARKING THIS BLOCK 65 0 65 612H-02-001.000 CITY OF LONG BEACH - 17 1501200 400 0 612H-02-001.001 GULF COAST CHAMBER OF 17 1500 7 0 612H-02-001.002 LONG BEACH YACHT CLUB 15 2300 25 0 612tt-02-001.003 TRAVROU INC 15 5880 50 0 TOTAL PARKING THIS BLOCK 482 0 482 TOTAL NUMBER OF PARCELS THIS REPORT: 346 TOTAL NUMBER OF PARCELS IN USE: 322 TOTAL NUMBER OF PARCELS LISTED AS VACANT LOTS: 24 113 SYNOPSIS OF TE LONG BEACH URBAN WATERFRONT STUDY AREA SURVEY CONDUCTED: Jul 1991 PARCL USE STATUS TOTAL NUMBER OF PARCELS IN STUDY AREA: 346 TOTAL NUMOBER OF PARCELS IN USE: 322 TOTAL NUMBER OF PARCELS LISTED AS VACANT LOTS: 24 PARKING STATUS TOTAL NUMBER OF ON STREET PARKING: 47 'TOTAL NUMBER OF OFF STREET PARKING: 2760 INCLUDING THE HARBOR EXCLUDING THE HARBOR AND AND BEACH AREAS BEACH AREAS USE TYPE SQUARE FOOTAGE PERCENT SQUARE FOOTAGE PERCENT OF OF TOTAL TOTAL OFFICE 43710 1.7% 43710 4.2% - SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING 238545 9.1% 238545 22.7% MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING 242346 9.3% 242346 23.1% RETAIL SALES 245440 9.4% 245440 23.4% CITY GOVERNMENT 11000 0.4% 11000 1.0% HOTEL/HOTEL 48000 1.8% 48000 4.6% SCHOOLS 13000 0.5% 13000 1.2% NOT FOR PROFIT 1500 0.1% 1500 0.1% RESTAURANT/LOUNGE 36425 1.4% 36425 3.5% VACANT BUILDING 71775 2.7% 71775 0.0% PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC 1616946 61.7% 47250 4.5% FIN./INSUR./REAL ESTATE 9450 0.4% 9450 0.9% TRANS./COMH./UTILITIES 37500 1.4% 37500 3.6% ATTORNEYS 3700 0.1% � 3700 0.4% FRATERNAL 0 0.0% 0 0.0% TOTAL 2619337 100.0% 1049641 100.0% 114 I I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~FIRST STREET II I ~~~~PINE STREET\\\\ I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~STREET *~~ ~ ~~~~~~~A ' H TREET 86 8 THZO 67 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~STREET I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I -cl 6 - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~: I * I : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ So44?~~~~~~S6 6l~~~~~S~~~ 6% L A~~~~~~ 5%~~~~2~~ -. 11 ~669 ---1-L 2~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ -~-L - .6 I H!GI~~~~~iWAVp 7 T - ~~~~~~~~~~rnIt I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A. I L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~H~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~7 * I GULF REO~~~~ONA!_ RLANN~~~NG COMM sSO16 I I I I I I I I ~~~APPENDIX C I I | ~~~~~~~~~Survey Forms I I ~~~~~'I I I I I I I I ! ! ! LONG BEACH URBAN WATERFRONT STUDY MERCHANT SURVEY (See merchant survey summary in text) Name of Business Address Type of Business Number of Employees 1. Does business own or lease building? 2. What is the square footage of the building? 3. How much of that space is occupied by your business 4. Are there other businesses in the building? If so, how much space do they occupy? 5. How much vacant space is there in the building? 6. How long have you been in business?: How long at this location? 7. What is your busiest day of the week? 8. What is the busiest part of the day? 9. How frequently do the majority of your clientele visit your business? (a) daily __(d) 2-3 times/month (b) 3-4 times/week (e) once/month - (c) 1-2 times/week (f) less than once/month 10. What is your primary method of promoting your business and attracting customers? (Rank in order of importance) -_(a)-Radio advertisements __(d) Group promotions __(b) TV advertisements - (e) Window displays (c) Word of mouth __(f) Newspaper advertisements __(g) Other 11. What percent of your business is tourist related? 12. Do you think that business in Downtown Long Beach has improved, declined or stayed the same over the past five years? 13. Do you think that business will improve, decline or remain the same over the next five years? 14. If you had the opportunity to move your business out of the Downtown Long Beach area, would you? Why? 15. What types of new businesses would you like to see in the Downtown and waterfront areas? 16. What infrastructure improvements (streets, sidewalks, medians, etc.) would you like to see in the Downtown and waterfront areas? 17. What other types of improvements would you suggest to improve the business climate of the area? LONG BEACH URBAN WATERFRONT STUDY RESIDENT SURVEY (Total responses for each question are shown) For the purposes of this study, the downtown area is defined as the area within one block on either side of Jeff Davis Avenue, south of the railroad. The waterfront area is defined as the area between Nicholson Avenue and Russell Avenue within one block of US 90 including the harbor area. I. How often do you or your mate do the following? 3+ 1-2 3+ 1 <1 times/ times/ times/ time/ time/ wk. wk. mo. mo. mo. Never A. Grocery shopping in: 1. Downtown Long Beach No arocerv stores in business 2. The waterfront area 78 130 73 36 10 52 3. Other areas of Long Beach 50 19 73 40 33 85 4. Pass Christian or Bay St. Louis 0 3 10 26 26 311 5. Gulfport or Biloxi 5 26 31 21 36 260 B. Drug store shopping in: 1. Downtown Long Beach 5 16 16 47 26 271 2. The waterfront area 21 68 52 62 42 135 3. Other areas of Long Beach 16 26 42 47 68 182 4. Pass Christian or Bay St. Louis 0 0 5 26 16 333 5. Gulfport or Biloxi 0 0 21 5 47 307 C. General shopping in: (clothing, gifts, hardware, etc.) 1. Downtown Long Beach 10 62 21 62 78 146 2. The waterfront area 26 73 47 52 18 151 3. Other areas of Long Beach 10 5 26 62 68 208 4. Pass Christian or Bay St. Louis 0 0 0 26 10 344 5. Gulfport or Biloxi 10 47 94 104 26 99 D. Seek professional ser- vices in: (medical, legal, accounting, etc.) 1. Downtown Long Beach 0 0 5 68 52 255 2. The waterfront area 0 0 0 5 36 338 3. Other areas of Long Beach 0 5 10 42 73 250 4. Pass Christian or Bay St. Louis 0 0 5 0 10 364 5. Gulfport or Biloxi 10 16 21 104 115 115 3+ 1-2 3+ 1 <1 times/ times/ times/ time/ time/ wk. wk. mo. mo. mo. Never E. Miscellaneous errands in: (banking, dry cleaners, City Hall, etc.) 1. D[5-town Long Beach 57 104 78 57 31 52 2. The waterfront area 10 26 31 10 16 286 3. Other areas of Long Beach 10 21 16 42 31 260 4. Pass Christian or Bay St. Louis 0 0 10 10 11 349 5. Gulfport or Biloxi 26 21 31 31 42 229 F. Patronize restaurants in: 1. Downtown Long Beach 26 21 20 42 52 219 2. The waterfront area 42 57 52 62 52 115 3. Other areas of Long Beach 16 5 36 57 37 229 4. Pass Christian or Bay St. Louis 0 5 10 47 31 287 5. Gulfport or Biloxi 5 32 68 120 77 78 G. Meet friends or socialize in: 1. Downtown Long Beach 46 5 32 22 25 250 2. The waterfront area 47 51 43 37 30 172 3. Other areas of Long Beach 41 16 15 27 21 260 4. Pass Christian or Bay St. Louis 5 1 20 21 26 307 5. Gulfport or Biloxi 32 22 48 101 68 108 H. Work in: 1. Downtown Long Beach 48 2. The waterfront area 33 3. Other areas of Long Beach 83 4. Pass Christian or Bay St. Louis 31 5. Gulfport or Biloxi 109 I. Use harbor recreational facilities (boat launching, fishing, sight-seeing, etc.) 26 26 47 31 78 172 II. When do you usually go downtown? (check one) 196 1 Weekdays 99 2 After work 73 3 Saturdays 42 4 Sundays 26 5 Never 120 III. How would you rate the downtown and waterfront areas of Long Beach for the following: Downtown Area Waterfront Area Don't Don't Good Fair Poor Know Good Fair Poor Know A. Attractiveness 74 131 169 6 192 150 32 6 B. Cleanliness 89 196 89 6 158 180 35 7 C. Parking convenience 134 106 133 7 235 94 30 21 D. Traffic flow 126 124 111 18 183 120 48 29 E. Convenience of shopping hours 155 100 96 29 269 84 11 16 F. Friendliness of merchants/ salespeople 214 101 38 27 245 102 14 19 G. Safety 178 144 39 19 185 171 4 20 H. Variety of goods /services 68 117 180 15 145 160 60 15 I. Cost of goods/ services 85 190 84 21 148 201 21 10 J. Quality of goods /services 152 161 47 20 191 150 27 12 K. Special events/ festivals 130 123 103 24 153 111 89 27 IV. What types of businesses would you like to see more of in: A. Downtown Long Beach (see survey summarv) B. Long Beach waterfront area (see survey summary) C. Elsewhere in Long Beach (see survey summarv) V. When you think of downtown Long Beach, what businesses, buildings or landmarks first come to mind? (see survev summary) VI. What festivals and special events do you attend in the downtown Long Beach area? (check all that apply) 243 A. Mardi Gras parade 109 C. Christmas parade 149 B. Radish Festival 87 D. Other VII. Are you (check one) 173 Male or 207 Female? VIII. What is your age? (check one) 5 under 18 123 36 - 50 65 over 65 94 18 - 35 93 51 - 65 IX. How long have you lived in Long Beach? (check one) 25 less than 1 year 75 11 - 20 years 40 1 - 5 years 136 21 - 40 years 30 6 - 10 years 74 over 40 years 121 X. What is the total yearly income of your household? (check one) 13 under $5,000 58 $20,000 - $30,000 32 $5,000 - $10,000 71 $30,000 - $40,000 26 $10,000 - $15,000 52 $40,000 - $50,000 19 $15,000 - $20,000 109 over $50,000 XI. How many people are in your household? (check one) 48 One 75 Four 139 Two 27 Five 86 Three 5 Six or more Please give us any suggestions or comments you have regarding improving the downtown and/or waterfront areas of Long Beach. (see survev summarvy) 122 LONG BEACH URBAN WATERFRONT STUDY RESIDENT SURVEY (Responses for each question indicated by percentage) For the purposes of this study, the downtown area is defined as the area within one block on either side of Jeff Davis Avenue, south of the railroad. The waterfront area is defined as the area between Nicholson Avenue and Russell Avenue within one block of US 90 including the harbor area. I. How often do you or your mate do the following? 3+ 1-2 3+ 1 <1 times/ times/ times/ time/ time/ wk. wk. mo. mo. mo. Never A. Grocery shopping in: 1. Downtown Long Beach No arocerv stores in business 2. The waterfront area 21% 34% 19% 9% 3% 14% 3. Other areas of Long Beach 13% 26% 19% 11% 9% 22% 4. Pass Christian or Bay St. Louis 0% 1% 3% 7% 7% 82% 5. Gulfport or Biloxi 1% 7% 8% 5% 10% 68% B. Drug store shopping in: 1. Downtown Long Beach 1% 4% 4% 12% 7% 71% 2. The waterfront area 5% 18% 14% 16% 11% 36% 3. Other areas of Long Beach 4% 7% 11% 12% 18% 48% 4. Pass Christian or Bay St. Louis 0% 0% 1% 7% 4% 88% 5. Gulfport or Biloxi 0% 0% 5% 1% 12% 81% C. General shopping in: (clothing, gifts, hardware, etc.) 1. Downtown Long Beach 3% 16% 5% 16% 21% 38% 2. The waterfront area 7% 19% 12% 14% 8% 40% 3. Other areas of Long Beach 3% 1% 7% 16% 18% 55% 4. Pass Christian or Bay St. Louis 0% 0% 0% 7% 3% 90% 5. Gulfport or Biloxi 3% 12% 25% 27% 7% 26% D. Seek professional ser- vices in: (medical, legal, accounting, etc.) 1. Downtown Long Beach 0% 0% 1% 18% 14% 67% 2. The waterfront area 0% 0% 0% 1% 10% 89% 3. Other areas of Long Beach 0% 1% 3% 11% 19% 66% 4. Pass Christian or Bay St. Louis 0% 0% 1% 0% 3% 96% 5. Gulfport or Biloxi 3% 4% 5% 27% 30% 30% 123 3+ 1-2 3+ 1 <1 tims/ / time time/ time/ wk. wk. mo. mo. mo. Never E. Miscellaneous errands in: (banking, dry cleaners, City Hall, etc.) 1. Downtown Long Beach 15% 27% 21% 15% 8% 14% 2. The waterfront area 3% 7% 8% 3% 4% 75% 3. Other areas of Long Beach 3% 5% 4% 11% 8% 68% 4. Pass Christian or Bay St. Louis 0% 0% 3% 3% 3% 91% 5. Gulfport or Biloxi 7% 5% 8% 8% 11% 60% F. Patronize restaurants in: 1. Downtown Long Beach 7% 5% 5% 11% 14% 58% 2. The waterfront area 11% 15% 14% 16% 14% 30% 3. Other areas of Long Beach 4% 1% 10% 15% 10% 60% 4. Pass Christian or Bay St. Louis 0% 1% 3% 12% 8% 75% 5. Gulfport or Biloxi 1% 8% 18% 32% 21% 21% G. Meet friends or socialize in: 1. Downtown Long Beach 12% 1% 8% 5% 7% 66% 2. The waterfront area 12% 14% 11% 10% 8% 45% 3. Other areas of Long Beach 11% 4% 4% 7% 5% 68% 4. Pass Christian or Bay St. Louis 1% 0% 5% 5% 7% 81% 5. Gulfport or Biloxi 8% 5% 12% 26% 18% 28% H. Work in: 1. Downtown Long Beach 13% 2. The waterfront area 9% 3. Other areas of Long Beach 22% 4. Pass Christian or Bay St. Louis 8% 5. Gulfport or Biloxi 29% I. Use harbor recreational facilities (boat launching, fishing, sight-seeing, etc.) 7% 7% 12% 8% 21% 45% II. When do you usually go downtown? (check one) 62% 1 Weekdays 26% 2 After work 19% 3 Saturdays 11% 4 Sundays 7% 5 Never 124 III. How would you rate the downtown and waterfront areas of Long Beach for the following: Downtown Area Waterfront Area Don't Don't Good Fair Poor Know Good Fair Poor Know A. Attractiveness 19% 34% 44% 2% 51% 39% 9% 2% B. Cleanliness 23% 52% 23% 2% 42% 47% 10% 2% C. Parking convenience 35% 28% 35% 2% 62% 25% 8% 5% D. Traffic flow 33% 33% 29% 5% 48% 32% 13% 8% E. Convenience of shopping hours 41% 26% 25% 8% 71% 22% 3% 4% F. Friendliness of merchants/ salespeople 56% 27% 10% 7% 64% 27% 4% 5% G. Safety 47% 38% 10% 5% 49% 45% 1% 5% H. Variety of goods /services 18% 31% 47% 4% 38% 42% 16% 4% I. Cost of goods/ services 22% 50% 22% 6% 39% 53% 6% 3% J. Quality of goods /services 40% 42% 12% 5% 50% 39% 7% 3% K. Special events/ festivals 34% 32% 27% 6% 40% 29% 23% 7% IV. What types of businesses would you like to see more of in: A. Downtown Long Beach (see survey summary) B. Long Beach waterfront area C. Elsewhere in Long Beach V. When you think of downtown Long Beach, what businesses, buildings or landmarks first come to mind? (see survev summarv) VI. What festivals and special events do you attend in the downtown Long Beach area? (check all that apply) 64% A. Mardi Gras parade 29% C. Christmas parade 39% B. Radish Festival 23% D. Other VII. Are you (check one) 46% Male or 54% Female VIII. What is your age (check one) 1% under 18 32% 36 - 50 17% over 65 25% 18 - 35 25% 51 - 65 IX. How long have you lived in Long Beach? (check one) 7% less than 1 year 20% 11 - 20 years 11% 1 - 5 years 36% 21 - 40 years 8% 6 - 10 years 19% over 40 years 125 X. What is the total yearly income of your household? (check one) 3% under $5,000 15% $20,000 - $30,000 8% $5,000 - $10,000 19% $30,000 - $40,000 7% $10,000 - $15,000 14% $40,000 - $50,000 5% $15,000 - $20,000 29% over $50,000 XI. How many people are in your household? (check one) 13% One 20% Four 37% Two 7% Five 22% Three 1% Six or more Please give us any suggestions or comments you have regarding improving the downtown and/or waterfront areas of Long Beach. (see survev summarv) 126 I I I I II I I APNI Long Beach Urban Waterfront I Advisory Committee I I I I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~II I I I I I I LONG BEACH URBAN WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Ms. Jackie Bates Mr. Butch Litton Mr. Larry Bates Ms. Karen Livengood Mr. Guy Bussler Mr. Donald Logan, Alderman Mr. Jack Case Mr. Travis Lott Mr. Louis Elias Mr. Gerald Mitchell Mr. W. G. Fennel Mr. Jeff Morse Mr. Donnie Hammons, Alderman Mr. Peter Nord Mr. Ronnie Hammons Mr. Barnett Ratcliff Mr. Earl Hudson Mayor Glenn Rishel Mr. Danny Kaletch Mr. Danny Satchield Mr. Ken Collins Ms. Carolyn Scarborough Mr. Howard Kapp Mr. Donald Sigworth Mr. Phil Kies Mr. Billie Skellie Mr. Ernie Ladner Mr. Tony Van Court Mr. Allen Lantz Mr. Wayne Ward Mr. Dennis Laubmeier Ms. Dolly Williamson Officers Mr. Phil Kies, Co-Chairman Mr. Allen Lantz, Co-Chairman Mrs. Karen Livengood, Vice-Chairman Committee Coordinator David Taylor 128