Alpena Case Study
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE CITY OF A CASE STUDY {ALPENA Michigan Coastal Community Working Waterfronts A CASE STUDY THE CITY OF ALPENA ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Michigan Coastal Community FELLOWSHIP MENTORS Working Waterfronts Mark Breederland, Michigan Sea Grant Extension Emily Finnell, Office of the Great Lakes NOAA FELLOWSHIP ADVISORY COMMITTEE This case study was compiled as part of a set of 11 working Jon Allan Richard Norton John Warbach waterfront case studies in coastal communities. For more Dave Knight Chuck Pistis Ronda Wuycheck information on the series, please see the Introduction, Carol Linteau Jennifer Read Lynelle Marolf Frank Ruswick Value and Context, Waterfront Land Use, Best Practices, and Recommendations and Next Steps sections. OFFICE OF THE GREAT LAKES AND SEA GRANT STAFF OTHER CASE STUDIES IN THIS SERIES: PREPARED BY Charlevoix Monroe Saugatuck Elizabeth Durfee Manistee Muskegon Sault Ste. Marie 2011-2013 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Manistique Ontonagon Zone Management Fellowship with the Michigan Coastal Zone Marquette Port Huron Management Program and Michigan Sea Grant. Cover photos: Alpena Community College, Elizabeth Durfee, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. June 2013 | MICHU-13-726 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ..............................................................4 FIGURES AND TABLES Summary .................................................................5 Figure 1. State of Michigan and Alpena County and aerial image of the city of Manistee with Context ...................................................................7 Lake Huron on in Lake Huron and the Community Profile ................................................... 8 Thunder Bay River................................................... 6 Community Overview .............................................. 9 Table 1. Intent, permitted uses and special uses of zoning districts that accommodate Waterfront History .................................................. 10 water-dependent uses and/or public access ......... 13 Waterfront Summary ............................................. 11 Figure 2. City of Alpena 2010 zoning districts .......................................................14 Zoning....................................................................13 Table 2. Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities Working Waterfront SWOT Analysis ..................... 14 and threats related to maintaining Alpena’s Tools, Strategies and Best Practices for working waterfront ................................................. 20 Maintaining Working Waterfronts........................... 15 Guiding Principles.................................................. 16 References and Resources ................................... 17 Michigan Sea Grant INTRODUCTION Many coastal communities have areas known fish stocks and regulations, aging and inadequate This case study: as working waterfronts — waterfront lands, infrastructure, decline in waterfront industry and n Characterizes one of many working waterfronts waterfront infrastructure and waterways that are economic recession — threaten the viability of found throughout Michigan’s diverse coastal used for water-dependent uses and activities. water-dependent businesses and access to the communities. These uses may include ports, small recreational public trust waters. Left unchecked, these threats n Identifies existing waterfront amenities, waterfront boat and fishing docks and other types of places can result in the slow loss of working waterfronts history, waterfront zoning and land area occupied or businesses where people use and access the and permanent conversion of waterfront property by water-related uses. water. Coastal communities’ working waterfronts to non-water-dependent uses. n offer economic and cultural value, contribute to a Highlights examples of waterfront challenges, community’s identity and are intrinsically tied to Active waterfront planning and the sharing and threats and opportunities as well as tools and a region’s natural resources. implementation of tools, resources and strategies strategies for maintaining the working waterfront. for maintaining and protecting working waterfronts A number of factors — such as population can ensure access for water-dependent uses and change, competing land uses and development activities, as well as preserve options for future pressure, fluctuations in water levels, changes in waterfront uses. ALPENA Michigan Coastal Community Working Waterfronts Case Study 4 SUMMARY Michigan Sea Grant Alpena, Michigan was settled mid harbor include cement, coal, petroleum Nine of the city’s non-residential Potential threats to the long term 1800s in Northeast Lower Michigan at products, sand, gravel, salt and districts permit water related uses by sustainability of the community’s the mouth of the Thunder Bay River limestone. This shipping generates right or special use permit. The city working waterfront include the loss along Lake Huron’s Thunder Bay. The $78 million annually in direct revenue has a waterfront development district of industry, decline in tourism, lack city’s 2010 population (10,483) decline and supports 700 jobs. that is intended to promote mixed of an exit plan for Lafarge and the approximately 7.3 percent since 2000. The two major channels used for uses that incorporate the waterfront, combination of a lack of adequate, The abundance of natural resources shipping in Alpena include the Port of promote public access and integrate available dock to attract new including furs, fisheries, forest, Alpena/Thunder Bay River and the the riverfront and riverwalk with the businesses or the commodities and farmland and limestone made this Lafarge Corporation port. The city’s downtown. shipping to finance construction of a region a prime location for early marina is the only public or private The city is invested in the economic new dock. settlement and industry. Major marina in the area. Alpena has a development and potential future use Best practices for maintaining access industries in Alpena include logging, harbor advisory committee, marina of the Lafarge Dock and the currently to the waterfront for the public and commercial fishing, extraction and department and is engaged in a underutilized West Dock. Alpena is water-dependent uses include: manufacturing, including cement regional ports study. Boating, diving also collaborating with the Northeast n Regional port collaboration. manufacturing. In addition to the and fishing are among the popular Michigan Council of Governments to n Collaboration with regional council manufacturing industry, the medical recreational opportunities in Alpena. investigate opportunities to increase of governments and Michigan State and tourist industries are important to Thunder Bay and surrounding waters the viability of ports in the region University to conduct a port study. the local and regional economy. through collaboration. The community’s near shipping lanes are home to over n Riverwalk construction. Alpena Harbor is a deep draft 80 discovered shipwrecks. Most of waterfront planning includes rezoning commercial, cargo and recreational these shipwrecks are protected within of waterfront property for public access harbor. The harbor ranks 20th among the boundaries of the National Oceanic and waterfront redevelopment, reuse Great Lakes Harbors (2008) with 3.1 and Atmospheric Administration’s of former industrial waterfront property million tons of material shipped or Thunder Bay Marine Sanctuary and new launch and dock facilities received by the harbor annually. Bulk Boundary. along the Thunder Bay River, for commodities that pass through the example. ALPENA Michigan Coastal Community Working Waterfronts Case Study 5 ALPENA, MI Thunder Bay River Michigan Alpena County 100 miles N City of Alpena Thunder Bay Lake Huron FIGURE 1. STATE OF MICHIGAN AND ALPENA COUNTY (LEFT) AND AERIAL IMAGE OF THE CITY OF MANISTEE 1 mile N WITH THUNDER BAY IN LAKE HURON AND THE THUNDER BAY RIVER. ALPENA Michigan Coastal Community Working Waterfronts Case Study 6 CONTEXT Jurisdiction / Government City Region Upper Peninsula County Alpena Land Area 5466 acres / 8.5 square miles Watershed / Subwatershed Lake Huron / Thunder Bay River Dominant Land Use of subwatershed Forest Adjacent Bodies of Water Lake Huron / Thunder Bay, Thunder Bay River Types of Water Body Great Lake / Bay, River Percent of Land Area within the CZM 14% Population (2010) 10,483 Michigan Sea Grant Percent of County’s Population 35% Percent of County’s Land Area 1.5% Urban / Suburban / Rural Urban Federally Authorized Harbors/Projects Alpena Harbor Type of Port Commercial, Cargo, Recreational Michigan Sea Grant ALPENA Michigan Coastal Community Working Waterfronts Case Study 7 COMMUNITY PROFILE POPULATION INCOME Alpena County Great Lakes Jobs Snapshot (NOAA) n The population of Alpena declined n The median household income n 7.3 percent from 2000 to 2010. In between 2006 and 2010 in the City In 2009, Great Lakes related jobs 2010, the city’s population density of Alpena was $31,463, compared accounted for 3.8 percent of total was 1,227 persons/square mile. to the median household income in jobs in Alpena County, a decrease of 26 percent since 2005. n The population of Alpena County Alpena County of $36,695. n decreased by 5.5 percent from 2000 Great Lakes related jobs provide to 2010. EMPLOYMENT employment for 425 people, provide $4 million in wages and provide $9 n The median age in Alpena increased Of the city’s population