DOCSLIB.ORG

Allegheny River Towns Enterprise Zone Housing Study TABLE of CONTENTS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Allegheny River Towns Enterprise Zone Housing Study TABLE of CONTENTS October 10, 2014 allegheny river towns enterprise zone housing study TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. I A. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................... i B. Key Issues: Demographic Profile .................................................................................................................................. i C. Key Issues: Residential Market Analysis ..................................................................................................................... ii D. Key Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................................iv II. DEMOGRAPHIC & ECONOMIC BASE ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 1 A. Study Area ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 B. Population Characteristics ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Population History ................................................................................................................................................. 2 Population Age ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 Race and Ethnicity ................................................................................................................................................. 3 Geographic Mobility ............................................................................................................................................. 4 C. Household Characteristics ............................................................................................................................................ 5 Households and Tenure ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Household Types .................................................................................................................................................... 6 Age of Householders ............................................................................................................................................ 8 Income and Poverty .............................................................................................................................................. 8 Household and Group Quarters Populations ................................................................................................... 10 D. Housing Problems of Existing Households in the Study Area ............................................................................... 10 E. Labor Force & Employment .......................................................................................................................................12 Labor Force and Unemployment ........................................................................................................................ 12 Local Employment ................................................................................................................................................15 III. RESIDENTIAL MARKET ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................17 A. Housing Supply and Tenure Trends ..........................................................................................................................17 Housing Growth and Change: Study Area and EZ ......................................................................................... 17 Vacant Housing ................................................................................................................................................... 18 New Housing Production ....................................................................................................................................19 Housing in 2012 and Housing by Period Built ................................................................................................ 20 Housing by Type of Structure ............................................................................................................................20 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................22 B. Homeowner Household Characteristics .................................................................................................................... 23 Owner Households by Move-in Year ................................................................................................................24 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................... 24 C. For-Sale Market Conditions .......................................................................................................................................25 Sales Activity and Sales Prices ..........................................................................................................................25 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................... 26 D. Renter Household Characteristics ............................................................................................................................. 27 Renter Households by Move-in Year ................................................................................................................. 28 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................28 E. Rental Market Conditions ...........................................................................................................................................29 ARTEZ Housing Study October 2014 Comparative Rental Data................................................................................................................................... 29 Listings at Newer, Modern Projects .................................................................................................................. 32 Craig’s List and Other Sources ..........................................................................................................................32 Rental Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................... 33 F. Forecasted Annual Household Demand (2013-2018) ..........................................................................................34 Blawnox ................................................................................................................................................................ 34 Etna .......................................................................................................................................................................36 Millvale ................................................................................................................................................................. 38 Sharpsburg ........................................................................................................................................................... 41 IV. DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS ....................................................................44 A. SITE CONSTRAINTS .................................................................................................................................................... 44 Flood Zone ........................................................................................................................................................... 44 Land Slope ........................................................................................................................................................... 44 Zoning Classification .......................................................................................................................................... 45 Redevelopment Activities ....................................................................................................................................45 B. New Flood Maps and Cost of Flood Insurance ...................................................................................................... 45 Background ..........................................................................................................................................................45 Impact on ARTEZ Communities ..........................................................................................................................48 C. ARTEZ Identified Parcels ...........................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Girtys Run, Millvale, Pennsylvania: Local Flood Protection Project
    GIRTYS RUN MiLLVALE. PENNSYLVANIA iloCAL FLOOD'PROTECTION PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT. PITTSBURGH CORPS OF ENGINEERS PITTSBURGH. PA. FEBRUARY 1975 SUMMARY GIRTYS RUN MILLVALE, PENNSYLVANIA ( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement Responsible Office: U.S. Army Engineer District, 1000 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222, (Ul2)6I*U-6800 1. NAME OF ACTION: (X) Administrative ( ) legislative 2. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Local protection project consisting of lower­ ing the existing channel of Girtys Run an average of four feet within the Borough of Millvale, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Concrete underpin­ ning and repair of existing channel walls would be provided where neces­ sary. 3. a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The Borough of Millvale would be protected against a 25 year frequency flood, enhancing the socio-economic conditions of the community. Aesthetic quality of stream would be improved by removal of debris from stream bed. New habitats for stream communities to develop would be provided. Possibly the population out-migration trend in Millvale would be reversed. b. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: Construction activity would result in temporary increases in traffic, noise, dust, exhaust emissions, erosion, stream turbidity and sedimentation, and temporary removal of all stream life. Present negligible aquatic life in Girtys Run would be eliminated during construction. k. ALTERNATIVES: Channel lowering of greater design capacity, channel widening, flood walls or dikes, combination channel lowering and walls, diversion tunnels, a multiple purpose reservoir, a headwater reservoir system, flood forecasting and warning system, flood plain management, flood insurance, flood proofing, rehabilitation, relocation or no action. 5. COMMENTS RECEIVED: U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Forest Service U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Pine Creek Watershed Implementation Plan FINAL - October 2009
    Pine Creek Watershed Implementation Plan FINAL - October 2009 Prepared by: Pennsylvania Environmental Council 22 Terminal Way Pittsburgh, PA 15219 www.pecpa.org Funding was provided by the PA Department of Environmental Protection through Section 319 of the Federal Clean Water Act Administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Table of Contents Executive Summary …………………………………………………1 Chapter 1: Watershed Background ………………………………….3 Chapter 2: Water Quality Characteristics …………………………...8 Chapter 3: Modeling Nonpoint Source Pollution Using AVGWLF and RUNQUAL ……………………………………..…19 Chapter 4: Recommendations for Pollution Load Reductions …….34 Chapter 5: Public Participation …………………………………….64 Chapter 6: Conclusions and Implementation Schedule …………….67 Appendices …………………………………………………………69 y Appendix 1 - Modeling Results: Natural Conditions, Entire Basin y Appendix 2 - Modeling Results: Existing Conditions, Entire Basin y Appendix 3 - Modeling Results: Existing Conditions, Sub-basins y Appendix 4 - Center for Watershed Protection’s 2007 Urban Stormwater Retrofit Practices, Appendix B: Defining Retrofit Pollutant Load Reductions y Appendix 5 - Center for Watershed Protection’s 2007 Urban Stormwater Retrofit Practices, Appendix D: Retrofit Pollutant Removal Rates y Appendix 6 - Center for Watershed Protection’s 2007 Urban Stormwater Retrofit Practices, Appendix E: Derivation of Unit Costs for Stormwater Retrofits and New Stormwater Treatment Construction y Appendix 7 – Stormwater Management Pond Evaluation Data Dictionary Executive Summary Pine Creek Watershed Implementation Plan The goal of this plan is to determine how best to reduce the nonpoint source pollutant loads in the Pine Creek Watershed (Allegheny County, Pennsylvania). Pine Creek is a 22.8 mile long tributary to the Allegheny River. Its watershed is 67.3 square miles in area and contains approximately 128 stream miles.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishes of Small Tributaries to the Ohio River in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania
    Fishes of Small Tributaries to the Ohio River in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania Koryak Environmental and Health Consultants for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Pittsburgh District October 2003 3 Rivers 2nd Nature STUDIO for Creative Inquiry Press in association with Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh Introduction Fishes of Small Tributaries to the Ohio River in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania Abstract The fish communities of fifty-three small urban/suburban streams with little or no available baseline fish data were sampled by backpack electrofishing in 2002 and 2003. All are tribu- taries of the Ohio, Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. A total of 3,026 fish of 37 species, weighing 95.3 pounds, were collected at stations located near the mouths of these 53 urban/suburban streams (electrofishing effort-547 minutes). Fish were present in 12 of 18 Ohio River tributaries. Of the 18 streams sampled within the Allegheny River drainage, only four did not support some fish. Fish were present in 15 of 17 of the Monongahela River tributaries. A total of 28 species of fish were collected in the tributaries of the Ohio River, 29 species in the Allegheny River tributaries, and16 species in the tributaries of the Monongahela River. Blacknose dace were the numerically dominant species collected in these small streams, and showed the widest distribution of any fish. Blacknose dace were present in 34 of the study streams, creek chub in 30, and white suckers in 16. Generally sensitive sculpin and darter species were present in 18 of the streams, and a Pennsylvania Endangered species (river shiner) was found in Bailey Run.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Recreation, Park, & Open Space Plan
    BRC-TAG-13.6-605 September 2012 This project was fi nanced in part by a grant from the Community Conservation Partnerships Program, Keystone Recreation, Park and Conservation Fund under administration of the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Recreation and Conservation. ROSS TOWNSHIP OFFICIALS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Grant Montgomery, President David J. Mikec, Vice President Daniel L. DeMarco Chris Rand Eyster John Sponcer Lana Mazur Grace Stanko Gerald R. O’Brian Peter A. Ferraro PARKS AND RECREATION STAFF Pete Geis, Parks and Recreation Director Vickey Trader, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director COMPREHENSIVE RECREATION, PARKS, AND OPEN SPACE PLAN STUDY GROUP Betty Ardery, Volunteer representing the senior population Tim Burnett, North Hills School District board Dan Cardone, North Hills School District Athletic Director Chris R. Eystrer, Ross Township Commissioner Sally Hergenroeder, Volunteer representing the senior population Karla Maruca, Representing civic association and forest sustainability Lana Mazur, Ross Township Commissioner Dave Mikec, Ross Township Commissioner and outdoor recreationalist cknowledgements Scott Schomaker, Active in community activities Barb Traynor, North hills Soccer Association Beth Wisnewski, Volunteer with parks and recreation A PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES Monica Hoffman, Recreation and Parks Advisor, Partnerships Division Kathy Frankel, Natural Resource Program Supervisor EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Occurrence and Trends in the Concentrations of Fecal-Indicator Centration, and Turbidity
    Prepared in cooperation with the Allegheny County Sanitary Authority and Allegheny County Health Department Occurrence and Trends in the Concentrations of Fecal- Indicator Bacteria and the Relation to Field Water-Quality Parameters in the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers and Selected Tributaries, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, 2001–09 Scientific Investigations Report 2015–5136 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Occurrence and Trends in the Concen- trations of Fecal-Indicator Bacteria and the Relation to Field Water-Quality Parameters in the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers and Selected Tributaries, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, 2001–09 By John W. Fulton, Edward H. Koerkle, Jamie L. McCoy, and Linda F. Zarr Prepared in cooperation with the Allegheny County Sanitary Authority and Allegheny County Health Department Scientific Investigations Report 2015–5136 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2016 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text.
    [Show full text]
  • 8B.6 Advantages of Adding “Basin Upstream Rainfall” (Bur) to the Flash Flood Monitoring and Prediction (Ffmp) Program
    8B.6 ADVANTAGES OF ADDING “BASIN UPSTREAM RAINFALL” (BUR) TO THE FLASH FLOOD MONITORING AND PREDICTION (FFMP) PROGRAM Robert S. Davis, T. A. Green, and C. S. Strager NOAA/NWSFO, Pittsburgh, PA 1. INTRODUCTION easily inundated with heavy rainfall, in short time periods of two hours or less, from a The National Basin Delineation (NBD) single slow-moving thunderstorm. Larger (http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/projects/basins/) watersheds have slower hydrologic Project by the National Severe Storms response times, and are much more difficult Laboratory (NSSL) created the small stream to flood. These larger watersheds require database used by FFMP at all National numerous showers to train over their larger Weather Service (NWS) offices in the basin areas, for longer time periods of 3 to 6 continental United States. While the basin hours or more. Because of these differences boundaries of the NBD small stream in hydrologic response and mesoscale database are routinely used by FFMP, mechanisms needed to create the required several other parameters created by the rainfall, watershed area has a direct impact NBD have not been operationally on the forecaster’s situational awareness of implemented for use in FFMP. Two of these any stream flood threat. unused parameters include the area and the The FFMP program was based on the flow accumulation for each FFMP basin Areal Mean Basin Estimated Rainfall segment. (AMBER) program started at the Pittsburgh The NBD also created hydrologic National Weather Service Forecast Office connectivity between each of the defined (NWSFO) in 1985. AMBER was designed to stream basins. FFMP does use this answer two questions.
    [Show full text]
  • Millvale, PA and the Case for Universal Flood Insurance in the United States
    School of Geography and the Environment MSc Elective Essay Millvale, PA and the Case for Universal Flood Insurance in the United States Andrew Tabas ______________________________________________________________ Abstract: The National Flood Insurance Program in the United States is in billions of dollars of debt and does not provide adequate flood insurance. The case of Millvale, Pennsylvania shows gaps in the program and community efforts to fill them. The National Flood Insurance Program should be replaced with a universal flood insurance program to solve these problems. Introduction The U.S. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is drowning. The program reached $30.4 billion in debt in September 2017 (Lehmann 2018). The NFIP’s debt decreased after Congress forgave $16 billion, but climbed again to $20.5 billion in July 2018 (Lehmann 2018). The debt increases with each major catastrophe. Meanwhile, there is uncertainty about the future of the program, demonstrated by Congress’s passage of multiple short-term NFIP extensions in 2018 (FEMA 2018a). Why is this problem occurring? Well-developed insurance programs balance risk and solidarity (Lehtonen and Liukko 2012). Risk is “the possibility of loss” (OED 2018a). Likelihood and consequences determine risk (Perseus 2012). Solidarity is “the fact...of being perfectly united...in interests” (OED 2018b). Insurance programs bring people together as a community to share the burden of flooding. The NFIP is not financially sound because it has not struck the correct balance between risk and solidarity. Because of this imbalance, the NFIP fails to fulfill Arnell’s three “roles” of insurance: reimbursement, cost-sharing, and mitigation (Arnell 2000). The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) argues that it is time “for Congress to take bold steps to reduce the complexity of the program and strengthen the NFIP’s financial framework” (FEMA 2018a).
    [Show full text]