Smoketown-Jackson Neighborhood Plan

PLAN

Prepared for the Board of Aldermen of the City of Louisville by the Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission, under contract with the Louisville Community Development Cabinet and with the assistance of the Smoketown Task Force.

The preparation of this document was financed in part with federal Housing and Community Development funds.

I August, 1982 I 1 todsville and J-a County manning Commission LouisvUle and Jefh-soo County Planning Commission TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION I . Land Use A . Needs Assessment 1 . Summary of Findings ...... 2 . Description of Existing Conditions . 3 . Profile of Residents ...... 4 . Patterns and Trends ...... 5 . Issues. Problems and Opportunities . 6 . Government and Non-Government Actions B . Projections ...... C . Alternatives and Recommendations 1 . Generation of Alternative Strategies 2 . Recommended Land Use Plan ...... D . Implementation ...... E . Priorities ...... I1 . Transportation A . Needs Assessment 1 . Summary of Findings ...... 2 . Existing Conditions ...... 3 . Analysis of Existing Conditions ...... 4 . Issues and Problems ...... 5 . Government and Non-Government Actions .... B . Projections ...... C . Alternatives and Recommendations 1 . Generation of Alternatives ...... 2 . Recommended Transportation Plan ...... D . Implementation ...... E . Priorities ...... I11 . Housing A . Needs Assessment 1 . Summary of Findings ...... I11-1 2 . Housing Profile ...... I11.1 3 . Profile of Residents ...... I1 1.7 4 . SupplyandDemand ...... 111-8 5 . Problems, Issues and Trends ...... I1 1-10 6 . PublicandPrivateActions .....I1 1.12 B . Projections ...... -111-14 C . Alternatives and Recommendations 1 . Generation of Alternative Strategies ... .I11.17 2 . Recommended Housing Plan ...... I11.20 D . Implementation ...... 111-21 E . Priorities ...... I11.29 IV. Economic Development A. Needs Assessment 1. Summary of Findings ...... 2. Existing Conditions ...... 3. Demographic Background ...... 4. Employment ...... 5. Commercial Supply and Demand . . . . . 6. Smoketown Neighborhood Business Survey 7. Problems and Opportunities ...... 8. Government and Non-Government Actions . INTRODUCTION The report before you is the Smoketown-Jackson Neighborhood Plan. It was prepared in 1981-1982 and approved by the Board of Aldermen on . This Plan covers that portion of the City of Louisville located between Broadway, Beargrass Creek, Kentucky Street and Interstate 65.

Highlights Readers of the Plan may want a guide to show where to find the parts that interest them. The Executive Summary following this Introduction briefly describes the planning process and the Plan's content. The following sections will be of interest to most readers and page numbers for locating them are added: 1. Recommendations: the Plan's recommendations consist of written guidelines and an accompanying map. Refer to the following pages for the Plan's recommendations: Land Use, page 1-33, Transportation, paqe 11-30, Housing, page 111-20. 2. Priorities: tables have been prepared summarizing implementation measures and showing their relative importance. For Land Use priorities see paqe 1-51, for Transportation, page 11-37, for Housing, page 111-30. 3. Implementation Measures: actions and programs to implement the Plan, agencies involved and cost estimates are covered in section D of each part of the Plan. For Land Use implementation measures, begin on paqe 1-36, for Transportation, page 11-32 and for Housing, page 111-21.

Outline The Smoketown Plan is a detailed report. It covers four elements of the neighborhood: Land Use, Transportation, Housing and Economic Development. Each element is considered separately and each element, except Economic Development, has been broken down into the following components: Needs Assessment describes existing conditions and identifies problems to be addressed by the Plan. Data on the neighborhood is contained or referenced in this section. Projections gives a brief discussion of the neighborhood's probable future, if current trends and government programs continue as they are. Alternatives and Recommendations is divided into two parts, a list of alternatives considered for each neighborhood problem and the recommendations and guidelines and maps for Smoketown. Implementation identifies actions and programs that should be carried out to bring about the recommendations. Priorities shows the relative importance of implementation actions and schedules startup of the actions. The Economic Development section consists of only a Needs Assess- ment.

For More Information: contact members of the project staff (see inside rear cover) at the Planning Commission offices, 581-5860. Executive Summary A. REQUESTED ACTION 1. Plan Preparation The Smoketown/Jackson Neighborhood Plan was prepared by the staff of the Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commis- sion, under a contract with the City of Louisville Community ~ Development Cabinet at the request of the Louisville Board of I Aldermen. The Planning Commission staff worked closely with I the Smoketown Task Force, a committee of the Smoketown Commun- ity Development Association in preparing the Plan. The Plan was prepared in part with federal Community Development Block Grant funds. The Plan was developed in accordance with the Neighborhood Plan Ordinance (Ordinance No. 22, Series 1980, City of Louisville). 2. Purpose of Plan The purpose of this plan is to identify the needs of Smoketown residents and businesses in terms of land use, transportation, housing and economic development. The Plan is intended to provide specific recommendations that will pronote the stabili- zation and revitalization of Smoketown as a residential area for low and moderate income persons and as a commercial/industrial area. The purpose of this study is to establish a plan that can be officially adopted by the City of Louisville as a basis for public policy and as a means to guide and encourage private investment. After the plan is adopted by the Board of Aldermen, it will guide decision-making by the Board and the Mayor in matters concerning the Smoketown neighborhood. Specifically, the Board of Aldermen: -- will consider the plan's recommendations in the development of city-wide plans, provision of services and preparation of budgets; -- may act as applicant for zoning change proposals recommended by the plan; and -- wili consider the plan as official planning evidence in its review of zoning change proposals. Similarly, the Executive Branch and associated agencies will use the plan to: -- develop city-wide plans and policies; I -- guide the provision of services; and -- prepare and review General Revenue and Community Development budgets. 3. Plan Content The Smoketown/Jackson Neighborhood Plan contains four sections: Land Use, Transportation, Housing and Economic Development. The Land Use, Transportation and Housing sections include the five phases specified in Section 3 of Ordinance 22, Series 1980: the "Needs Assessment" that inventories existing conditions, the "Projection" of existing trends into the future if no actions are taken, "Recommendations" to address the issues and problems identified, "Implementation" strategies to carry out the Recommendations, and "Priorities" for implementing the plan including responsible agencies, organizations and funding sources. The Economic Development section is limited to a Needs Assessment. The study area for the Smoketown Neighborhood Plan is bounded by Broadway, Beargrass Creek, Kentucky Street and Interstate 65. This area measures approximately 280 acres.

re proposed at this time. B. NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE The Smoketown/Jackson Neighborhood Plan was developed in compliance with the requirements of Ordinance No. 22 concerning content and process for preparationmand adoption of neighborhood plans. 1. Summary of Recommendations and Priorities a. Land Use The land use plan for Smoketown consists of a series of recommendations or guidelines, and a map. The guidelines appear in part C.2.a. of the Land Use section, Figure 1-7 illustrates land use recommendations. Land use problems and issues, and the land use plan developed in response to them are summarized in the following paragraphs. Smoketown's housing stock is a valuable resource, providing homes for low and moderate income people that cannot be replaced under current market conditions. The area's housing stock has declined rapidly: an estimated 60% since 1950. Vacancy, abandonment and expanding businesses continue to reduce the housing stock. As a first step toward saving this resource, the Plan delineates a residential core and recommends that this area be retained for housing. Businesses located in the area should be allowed to expand only after showing how the expansion would be compatible with adjacent homes and would contribute to revitalization of the neighborhood. New commercial uses should not be allowed in the residential core unless they meet residents' needs. The Plan recommends that businesses in the residential core provide screening and buffering, and take other steps to reduce nuisances. Because of the decline in housing, vacant lots are numerous in Smoketown. These often have high weeds and are used for dumping. In the residential core, the Plan recommends new housing construction on vacant lots or reuse of lots as community gardens and open space. Proper maintenance is recommended until vacant property is returned to active use. Additional and improved facilities are needed at Ballard and Lampton Parks. The Plan supports these improvements. Smoketown's industrial and commercial corridors are largely developed and in good repair with some vacant sites and structures interspersed. Expansion of parking facilities west of Logan Street is displacing some of the neighborhood's best housing. The Plan supports full use of vacant property; the former Hillerich and Bradsby site is proposed for commercial or health care uses. Screening and restrictions on parking lots are recommended in the industrial area. I ! Sinoketown lacks basic shopping facilities. The commercial strip on Preston Street has declined and no concentration of stores has taken its place. There is a need for a grocery, drug store and laundromat. Accordingly the Plan recommends a market study to determine the feasibility of building a shopping center along Broadway to serve Smoketown, Phoenix Hill and other neighborhoods. Three alternative sites in the commercial corridor are outlined, depending on the size center to be built. This development should be done in tandem with rehabilitation of adjacent housing. A combination of commercial, industrial and declining residential uses have created a confused land use pattern in the area west of Preston Street. The Plan recommends expansion of commercial and light industrial uses in this area, to occupy vacant land and structures. The cluster of Victorian homes at Brook and Breckinridge Street is recommended for preservation. The Smoketown Plan also includes recommendations dealing with neighborhood needs for programs and organization. Increased participation in the neighborhood association is urged, including involvement of businesses, churches and more residents. A self-help program to reduce crime is recommended. Programs for job training and employment are supported. The Plan also recommends action to improve the appearance of Smoketown and build community spirit, such as planting street trees and organizing a neighborhood event. Implementation measures recommended to achieve the land use plan for Smoketown are discussed in part D. of the Land Use section. Implementation measures are organized according to three priority classifications. Responsible agencies and startup periods are listed for each measure. "Short range" refers to the period from 6 to 18 months following adoption of the Plan, "medium range" refers to the period between 18 months and 3 years, "long range" refers to the period extending beyond 3 years from plan adoption. b. Transportation Improvements recommended for the transportation system in Smoketown arebpresented in the guidelines (part C.2.a. of the Transportation Section) and in Figure 11-13. The transportation issues and recommendations developed as part of the planning process are summarized in the following paragraphs. The street system in Smoketown handles existing traffic volumes very well, no major improvements are needed. Problems with inadequate visibility and cars running stop signs were identified at three intersections: Clay and Lampton, Hancock and Lampton, Hancock and Jacob. Improved signage, pavement markings and parking restrictions are recommended for these intersections. Speeding is a problem on several local streets. The Plan recommends installation of 25 mph speed limit signs on Hancock, Lampton, Jacob and Clay Streets, and an enforcement program. Several intersections in Smoketown, mostly along Broadway, experience high traffic volumes and have elevated levels of traffic accidents. Additional signs, directional pavement markings and traffic signal adjustments are recommended to help reduce the number of accidents. Improved facilities for pedestrians are needed in some locations. In areas of heavy use, crosswalk lines should be repainted or provided for the first tine. The City policy of requiring handicapped ramps when sidewaIks are reconstructed is endorsed. The Plan supports the Housing Authority's scheduled improvements to walkways in Sheppard Square. The Plan recognizes the potential safety problems associated with children crossing Jackson and Hancock Streets in the Sheppard Square project, and at the same time acknowledges the constraints on installation of a crosswalk. Therefore the Plan recommends further study of pedestrian needs and appropriate safety measures for these locations. Smoketown is well served by public transportation. However, there is a lack of shelters and benches for transit users. The Plan suggests a feasibility study of bus shelters along the south side of Broadway and recommends benches at heavily used stops in the interior of the neighborhood. There is a need among Smoketown residents for additional transportation services. Shopping trips and medical appointments pose transportation problems for elderly and car-less residents. A neighborhood program based on church vans and volunteer drivers is recommended in the Plan. A need for reserved on-street parking spaces for handicapped residents was identified. The Plan recommends provision of these spaces. Measures to implement the transportation recommendations are presented in part D. of the plan's Transportation Section. c. Housing The housing guidelines (part C.2.a. of the Housing Section) and Figure 111-1 present the recommendations for Smoketown's housing stock. The recommendations are summarized below. Smoketown's housing stock has declined substantially and is in poor condition -- 83% of the housing units were classified as substandard in the windshield survey. Bad structural conditions lead to abandonment and eventual demolition of housing. Loss of dwelling units reduces the stock of single-family homes available to low and moderate income people. Income levels of Smoketown residents limit their ability to meet the repair and utility costs of older structures. The Plan makes several recommendations to deal with these problems. A housing repair program is recommended, to correct safety hazards and halt further structural decline. The Plan suggests a neighborhood- based emergency repair program for elderly and handicapped residents. The housing repalr program would consist of four components that can be accomplished in phases as funds and expertise become available: simple weatherization, painting, creation of a tool library, and development of a housing repair staff. In response to declining conditions, the Plan supports housing rehabilitation throughout the neighborhood, and proposes focusing financial aid for rehabilitation in limited areas. Focused rehabilitation is a response to the neighborhood's widespread deteriorated conditions and limited amounts of financial assistance. Rehabilitation of Sheppard Square is considered part of the area's rehabilitation needs. The Smoketown Plan further recommends a redevelopment strategy for areas of worst structural conditions and concentrations of vacant lots. A combination of rehabilitation and clearance/new construction under unified management is suggested for limited areas. Figure 111-1 shows areas where redevelopment may be justified.' The Plan recognizes that redevelopment is a long range recommendation, depending on the City's completion of other similar projects and the availability of funding. Smoketown has a high vacancy rate, estimated at 13.5%, and the majority of houses have been vacant for a long time. The Plan recommends public acquisition of abandoned structures and rehab financing assistance. It also proposes a marketing campaign to increase demand for housing in the area. The rate of owner-occupancy in Smoketown is very low, about one-half the City-wide rate. This contributes to transiency of residents and a lack of commitment to the neighborhood. The Plan recommends increasing homeownership in Smoketown. Acqui- sition of abandoned property, new construction for owner occupants and cooperative housing are suggested means of achieving this goal. The vacant land in Smoketown's residential core is suggested for new residential construction. The redevelopment areas also would entail new construction. The Plan suggests that both small and large scale construction projects be compatible with the size, scale and setback of existing development in Smoke- town. Implementation measures for the housing recommendations are summarized in part D of the plan's Housing Section. d. Economic Development The Economic Development section of the Plan is only a Needs Assessment. Recommendations and implementation measures were not developed for that element of the neighborhood plan. The principal findings of the Needs Assessment can be summarized as follows. The amount of neighborhood commercial use exceeds the needs of Smoketown residents based on the disposable income of the residents. However, the mix of neighborhood retail is inadequate. Many of the neighborhood commercial uses, especially those scattered throughout the residential area, are dilapidated and lack selection. The consistently high rate of unemployment in the Smoketown neighborhood contrasts with the large employment centers in the surrounding neighborhoods. This situation emphasizes the need for job opportunities for less skilled workers and programs to improve job skills. Income levels of the neighborhood residents are very low, and 1980 population has dropped to less than one-third of its 1950 levels. There is a trend away from retail and general commercial firms in the neighborhood while services, wholesaling and manufacturing firms are on the increase. 2. Citizen Participation The Smoketown/Jackson Neighborhood Plan is the product of frequent and close cooperation between the Planning Commission staff and neighborhood interests, in fulfillment of Section 4B and 4C (a) of Ordinance No. 22 on Citizen Participation. The Smoketown Task Force, a committee of the Smoketown Community Development Association, was consulted frequently; since September of 1981, the Planning Commission met with this group at least once a month. The Task Force devoted time to problem identification, suggested alternative solutions, helped develop the plan's recommendations, and reviewed means of implementing the plan. Opportunities for citizen participation were not restricted to the Task Force. The Smoketown Community Develop- ment Association announced meetings dealing with the plan and invited neighborhood residents to participate. A general public meeting was conducted on July 13, 1982 to receive comments on the draft plan in furtherance of Section 4C (a) of the Neighborhood Plan Ordinance. A public hearing conducted by the Board of Aldermen will also provide an opportunity for citizen input in accordance with Section 4C (d) of Ordinance No. 22.

3. Agency Review The draft Plan was submitted to agencies and organizations affected by the plan, or responsible for implementing portions of it, for their review (Section 4C (b) of Ordinance No. 22). Comments from these agencies and area residents were evaluated and necessary revisions have been incorporated in the plan. The Plan was forwarded for a final checkoff by the Community Development Cabinet (Section 4C (c) of Ordinance No. 22). Subsequent to the Cabinet's acceptance of the plan, it will be submitted to the Board of Aldermen for their consideration and adoption. In addition to this process for reviewing the end product, plan implementors such as the Community Development Cabinet, Landmarks Commission, Traffic Engineering, etc. have been consulted on the plan's content during its preparation. I. Land Use A. NEEDS ASSESSMENT 1. Summary of Findings -- Smoketown neighborhood covers 281 acres and includes residential, commercial, public and industrial uses. - - Vacant land and vacant structures account for 38 acres or 14% of the neighborhood. - - Smoketown is zoned for residential, commercial and industrial use, with R-8 Apartment zoning predominant. The current zoning pattern was established in 1969, replacing industrial zoning that had been imposed in 1931. -- A windshield survey of building exteriors indicates that the majority of housing is in poor condition. Two-thirds of the housing stock needs major repair; 17% are substandard. Non- residential structures are in better condition; 51% are standard, 4% are substandard. - - Smoketown's population has declined dramatically since 1950. During the 1970's this trend continued at the same rate. Population in 1980 was 3,390, a 68% decline from 10,653 persons in 1950. - - Income levels in Smoketown are significantly below the City- wide average; per-capita income in 1970 was 60% of the City average. -- Past trends and current conditions indicate residential use is declining, demolition is widespread and no new residential construction has occurred. Demand for commercial structures appears to be fairly strong. - - Problems and issues facing Smoketown include: decline of residential uses, unmaintained vacant lots, high crime rate, lack of neighborhood shopping, unfavorable demographic trends. 2. Description of Existing Conditions a. Existing Land Use Smoketown-Jackson occupies a central location in the City of Louis- ville. The neighborhood's boundaries are Broadway on the north, Beargrass Creek on the east, Kentucky Street on the south and Interstate 65 on the west. Smoketown is southeast of Downtown Louisville, and was settled in the nineteenth century as part of the City'srearly southward expansion. Subdivision of land in Smoketown into small lots for development was begun in the late 1840's and was completed in 1897. From its beginning, Smoketown has been a primarily black neighborhood, settled shortly after the Civil War. The name "Smoketown" has been associated with the neighborhood for a long period, and refers to the smokestacks of industries that dotted the neighborhood. Smoketown-Jackson today is surrounded by the dense, urban neighborhood of Downtown Louisville, Phoenix Hill, Germantown, Shelby Park and Old Louisville. The Smoketown-Jackson neighborhood consists of 47 blocks covering a total area of 281 acres. Census Tracts 61, 62 and a portion of Tract 63 constitute Smoketown. Smoketown-Jackson is a neighborhood of mixed land uses. Within the neighborhood's boundaries lies a mixture of houses, neighborhood stores, large commercial operations, offices and industrial uses. A survey of existing land use conducted by the Planning Commission in 1981 showed housing to be the predominant land use in Smoketown, accounting for 28.2% of the area. Streets and alleys occupy 28% of Smoketown; followed by commercial uses, 16%; public and religious uses, 10%; vacant land, 10%; and industries, 5%. Table 1-1 presents detailed information of the extent of land uses by area in Smoke- town. Because of the diversity of land uses within Smoketown the neighborhood was divided into sub-areas having similar characteristics. Sub-area boundaries are shown on Figure 1-1. Residential uses occupy 79 acres and are concentrated between Preston Street, Finzer, Logan and Kentucky Streets (see Residential Core on Figure 1-1). There are approximately 1,400 dwelling units in Smoketown. Single-family homes are the predominant type of housing. Multi-family structures (buildings containing three or more dwelling units) contain approximately 600 apartments in 68 structures. Sheppard Square accounts for two-thirds of the multi- family units in Smoketown. Duplex (two-family) structures occupy 7 acres and provide 140 dwelling units. Residential lots in Smoketown are long and narrow, typical of platting practices during the Nineteenth Century. Most residential lots are 25 to 30 feet wide, and 150 to 200 feet deep. The very deep lots in some areas have been divided to create building lots along the alleys. Homes along the alleys have declined in numbers as well as structural condition, but this housing pattern still exists in Smoketown. Residential density is a measure of the number of dwelling units (homes or apartments) per acre of land. In Smoketown, most blocks have an average density of between 12 and 24 dwelling units per acre. Residential density is higher in Sheppard Square, ranging between 24 and 38 dwelling units per acre. Table 1-1 Existing Land Use (1981)

Land Use Category Acres % of Total Acres

Single Family Single Family, Vacant Duplex Duplex, Vacant Multi-family (3 or more units) Multi-family, Vacant Residential, Sub-total.. ... Manufacturing, Light Manufacturing, Light, Parking Manufacturing, Heavy Communications & Utilities Communications & Utilities, Parking Wholesale Wholesale, Vacant Wholesale, Parking Retail Goods Retail Goods, Vacant Retail Goods, Parking Retail General Retail General, Vacant Retail General, Parking Office Office, Vacant Office, Parking Government Government, Parking Medical Services Educational Educational, Parking Religious Religious, Parking Public Parks Public Parks, Vacant Private Parks Private Parks, Vacant Parking Vacant Street, Alleys, R.O.W.'s Total Source: Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission, 1981 Commercial uses occupy 46 acres or 16% of Smoketown's area. There are approximately 130 commercial uses in the neighborhood, including neighborhood commercial uses, services, offices, and specialty establishments serving a wide area. Commercial uses are concen- I trated along Broadway and west of Preston Street, (the Commercial Corridor and Area 3 on Figure 1-11. In addition, corner lots in the residential core of Smoketown are often used commercially. I Industrial uses account for 15 acres or 5% of Smoketown. Industries are situated east of Logan Street (see Figure 1-1) and in scattered locations in the southwest portion of the neighborhood. The system of streets and alleys is a major land use in Smoketown, covering 78 acres and nearly equalling residential land use. The streets follow the north-south, east-west grid pattern. Public and semi-public uses occupy 30 acres in Smoketown. This category includes churches, schools, parks and government offices. Community facilities located in Smoketown are listed in Table 1-2. b. Vacant Property Vacant land and vacant structures are a significant part of Smoke- town's land use pattern, accounting for 38 acres or 14% of the neighborhood's area. There are over 200 vacant lots, covering 25 acres. Vacant lots occur throughout the neighborhood, and are concentrated between Preston and Shelby Streets. In most cases, the vacant lots had been used for houses. Housing demolition has occurred due to inadequate demand for homes in the area and insufficient maintenance related to lack of demand. The small lot sizes, fragmented ownership and lack of demand for nonresidential uses in the area have contributed to the neighborhood's long-term problem with vacant lots. Two large vacant parcels in Smoketown had formerly been used by industrial operations. The Hillerich and Bradsby site on Finzer Street and the old woolen mill site on Caldwell Street have been vacant for several years. In addition to vacant lots, there are 95 vacant structures in Smoketown, occupying 12 acres. Most vacant structures are single- family homes; there are also some vacant commercial structures. Vacant sites and vacant structures are shown on Figure 1-2, and acreage data appears in Table 1-1. . c. Zoning The zoning regulations (text) and the zoning district map regulate the manner in which land can be developed. Zoning was instituted in the City of Louisville in 1931. At that tlme, Smoketown was zoned to permit light industrial use in almost the entire neighborhood. The Male High School site and areas along Kentucky Street were zoned to permit high density residential use. Industrial zoning at that time permitted any type of use, including residential, commercial and nonhazardous industrial uses. Smoketown was primarily residential at the time, but was zoned industrial to encourage business and industry expansion. Zoning in Smoketown remained the same for many Table 1-2 Community Facilities

Parks Ballard (1.0 acres) Lampton (2.4 acres) 1 basketball court 3 basketball courts 1 volleyball court baseball field 1 spray pool (out of service) playground equipment playground equipment picnic tables Other Recreation Facilities Presbyterian Community Center: indoor recreation facilities, supervised recreation program, playground, tot lot (Child Develop- ment Center). Schools Louisville Male Traditional High School Albert E. Meyzeek Middle School Spencerian College (business school) Local Social Services Presbyterian Community Center emergency food and clothing nutrition program for the elderly senior citizen recreation programs youth recreation programs remedial education (9.e.d.) pregnancy counseling job search Presbyterian Corninunity Child Development Center day care Areawide and Local Social Services Community Action Agency - Jackson Area Council senior citizen activity center Franciscan Shelter House soup kitchen Salvation Army Welfare Department counseling emergency food, clothing and furniture job search Seven Counties Services - East Central Central individual and family counseling mental health services Churches Bethel Temple Apostolic Faith Church Broadway Church of the Nazarene Calvary Cathedral Church of God in Christ Grace Hope Presbyterian Grace Memorial Tabernacle New Coke United Methodist Rock of Ages Baptist St. Mary Magdalene St. Peter Claver Spradling Memorial AME Zion Church Tabernacle Missionary Baptist Church Trinity AME Church True Vine Holiness Church Unity Temple years. The first significant change occurred in 1956, when the area south of Lampton Street between Jackson and Clay was rezoned from the industrial to the high density residential classification. With few zoning changes in the balance of the neighborhood, public policy continued to favor the expansion of nonresidential development in Smoketown. A change in the zoning ordinance in 1963, however, had a significant impact on Smoketown. The 1963 revision changed industrial zoning from an inclusive classification, which allowed residential, commercial and industrial uses to an exclusive classification which allowed only industrial uses. This change prevented the expansion of existing and creation of new non-industrial uses in the area unless a rezoning was approved. The desire to remedy this situation, and to protect remaining areas of residential development, led to a sweeping change in Smoketown's zoning. The Near-East Side Rezoning enacted in 1969 for Smoketown and surrounding neighborhoods. It recognized that sites in these areas were not appropriate or well suited for industrial use, and was designed to protect residential neighborhoods close to Downtown. Zoning was changed in most of Smoketown. Industrial zoning in the northwest portion of the neighborhood and along Broadway was changed to C-2 Commercial zoning. In the heart of the neighborhood, industrial zoning was changed to the R-8 Apartment District. The areas which had been zoned for residential use in 1956 were changed from R-7 to R-8, a zone that allows higher residential densities. Corners along Clay and Shelby Streets were rezoned to allow commercial uses. Indus- trial zoning was reduced to areas east of Logan Street and to the vicinity of Breckinridge, Preston, Caldwell and Floyd Streets. Present zoning is very similar to the zoning pattern created by the Near-East Side Rezoning. Existing zoning is shown on Figure 1-3 and acreage data is presented in Table 1-3. Smoketown is zoned to allow commercial, residential and industrial uses. Commercial zoning occupies 25% of the area; residential zoning, 58%; and industrial zoning, 17%. The uses permitted in the various zones are presented in the Appendix and will be summarized here. C-1 Commer- cial zoning allows offices and most types of shops typically found in neighborhoods. C-2 and C-3 allow additional types of commercial operations, such as auto repair, laundries and taverns. C-3 zoning is designed for the core of the City, and does not require stores to provide parking areas. The commercial zones also permit residential development. The R-8 Apartment zone allows development of housing up to a density of 58 dwelling units per acre. This zone also allows professional offices (lawyers, engineers, etc.). The R-10 zone sets no maximum for residential density, and allows office uses of all types. M-2 Industrial zoning allows a wide range of industrial uses. Table 1-3 xi sting Zoning (1981)

Zoning Percent of Classification Acres Total Area

Total

Source: Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission, July 1981. Nonconforming Uses: Nonconforming uses are land uses of a type or intensity that are no longer permitted in the zoning district in which they exist. Nonconforming uses were either in existence prior to the establishment of zoning in 1931 or prior to a zoning change affecting the area. Although not in accordance with the zoning regulations, nonconforming uses may legally continue. However, any expansion of structure or use, or any change in type of use that would not be allowed by current zoning is prohibited with minor exceptions for residential uses (e.g., adding a room or garage). Examples of nonconforming uses include residential or commercial uses in an industrial zone and commercial uses in a residential zone. In additlon to nonconforming uses, nonconformity with the zoning regulations can also result from excessive residential densities and inadequate lot size (termed dimensional nonconformance as opposed to use nonconformance). These topics are discussed later. Nonconforming use status implies that a different type of land use may be more appropriate for an area than what exists. The effects of nonconforming use status vary according to the type and character of surrounding land use. Less intensive uses in a more intensive zone (such as residential and commercial uses in an industrial zone), may be subject to many nuisances. These nuisances could affect the desirability of the residential or commercial uses, and result in a decline in property maintenance and economic return. The potential for converting these uses to another, more lucrative use would also discourage investment and property maintenance. Conversely, residential uses in industrial zones may create problems for the predominant use by generating complaints concerning its operations or by occupying sites suited for industrial use. More intensive uses in a less intensive zone (such as industrial and commercial uses in a residential zone) may have a blighting effect on the less intensive use. Nonconforming uses occur in most parts of Smoketown. Commercial uses are the most common nonconforming use in Smoketown. There are 41 commercial uses located in residential zones, generally located on street corners throughout the neighborhood. There are nonconforming commercial uses in industrial zones and in areas zoned C-1. Residential uses in industrial zones create an additional 44 nonconforming uses. There are 12 industrial uses not situated in an industrial zone. Residential Uses in Commercial Zones: Under the Zoning District Regulations, residential uses are permitted in commercial zones, as long as they meet the density and floor area limits specified for that zone. The C-2 zone, which is the predominant commercial zone in Smoketown, allows high density residential development. Although residential uses within commercial zones do not fall in the category of nonconforming use, their future uses and the character of the surrounding area are affected by commercial zoning. Such zoning does not support the residential character of the area. Assuming that residential use is desired in a particular location, commercial zoning has a destabilizing effect. Commercial zoning would allow individual property owners to significantly change the scale, character, and appearance of a particular site. The potential for nuisances to adjacent residential uses is especially great in the C-2 zone, which allows a wide range of commercial and wholesale uses. Residential use in commercial zones occurs south of College Street between Brook and Preston and along Preston south of Cald- well. Environmental Factors: Smoketown is situated on level terrain, suitable for urban development. The area's sole environmental constraint is the Beargrass Creek floodplain. The eastern edge of the neighborhood is in the "floodway fringe" which is the area that would be inundated by flooding statistically expected once every 100 years. Figure 1-4 shows the portion of Smoketown in the "floodway fringe." New residential construction in the floodway fringe would have to be elevated above the 100-year flood elevation. Commercial and industrial construction would either have to be elevated or flood-proofed. Air pollution is a significant problem throughout Central Louis- ville, and Smoketown is no exception. Sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead, ozone and particulates exceed health standards. Carbon monoxide, lead and particulate pollution problems are aggra- vated by the amount of auto traffic passing through Smoketown. Land Use Conflicts: Land use conflicts can arise when different types of land use -- residential, commercial, industrial -- are located near each other. Homes located near commercial or industrial establishments may be subjected to a variety of nuisances, including noise, heavy traffic, bright lights, air pollution and unsightly appearance. The extent of land use conflicts resulting from mixed land uses depends on certain characteristics of the nonresidential use: hours of operation, amount of traffic generated, nature of the processes involved, and measures to screen the business affect the level of nuisance created. Industrial uses have the potential to create greater land use conflicts, but are not necessarily more offensive than commercial uses. The severity of land use conflicts is subjective, depending on the residents' level of expectations. Older parts of the city historically have contained a mix of land uses. Although this land use pattern is not ideal, it has provided an acceptable residential environment. The potential for land use conflicts in Smoketown is large. A mixture of residential and nonresidential uses occurs on 34 of the 47 blocks in the neighborhood. Areas of predominantly nonresidential use may entail the greatest land use conflicts. Homes east of Logan Street and in the area west of Preston and north of Caldwell fall into this category. Homes adjoining industries may also experience significant nuisances. Five industries in Smoketown are located in areas with significant residential development. In the neighborhood's residential core (the area between Logan, Kentucky, Preston and the east-west alley south of Broadway) land use conflicts would be a result of corner commercial establishments. Nuisances due to corner commercial uses are usually localized; the severity depends on the type of use and its manner of operation. Condition of Structures: A windshield survey was conducted in July of 1981 to collect data on the condition of structures in Smoketown. The survey is based solely on an analysis of building exteriors; no interior inspection occurred. Residential structures were rated using a five-category classification system; a three-category system was applied to nonresidential structures. The results of the survey are presented on Figure 1-5 and Table 1-4. Table 111-3 in the Housing section explains the classification system used to describe structural conditions. The windshield survey indicated widespread structural problems in Smoketown. Three-quarters of the neighborhood's buildings are in need of major repairs. Nonresidential structures generally are in better condition than residential structures. Over half of the nonresidential structures are classified as standard, while only 17% of residential structures are in the corresponding classification. The predominant classification among residential structures is "sound, needing major repair". Two-thirds of the housing stock falls in this category. Some locational patterns relating to structural conditions are evident. Commercial uses in the north, east and west frlnges of Smoketown are generally ln standard condition. Most of the commercial uses in the residential core of the area, generally corner stones and small businesses, are classified as "depreciating". The strip of commercial structures along Preston is a concentration of depreciating buildings. The quality of residential structures does not vary in different parts of Smoke- town. Housing in the "structurally sound needing major repair" category predominates; better and worse housing conditions occur throughout the neighborhood. Housing is in somewhat better condition along Kentucky and Logan Streets, but there are no areas of consistently "sound" or "deteriorated" housing. Well maintained homes and housing beyond repair occurs within most blocks of Smoke- town. Industrial uses and institutions (churches, schools, etc.) are generally in standard condition regardless of their location in Smoketown. Table 1-4 Condition of Structures

Residential Number Percent Sound 16 Sound Minor Repair 126 Sound Major Repair 541 Deteriorated 111 Dilapidated -3 1 Total 825

Nonresidential Standard 116 Depreciating 104 Substandard -8 Total 228

Total Structures Standard (Sound Sound Minor) , 258 Depreciating (Sound Major) 645 Substandard (Deterio- rated, Dilapidated) 2 Total 1053 3. Profile of Residents The Smoketown neighborhood is a declining residential neighborhood on the perimeter of Downtown Louisville. Commercial use encroach- ment and a deteriorating housing stock have resulted in high losses of both dwelling units and population. In 1950 there were 10,653 persons living in Smoketown. By 1980 the neighborhood's population had declined -688, leaving only 3,390 Smoketown residents. This decline is the result of three decades of population loss. The population of Smoketown declined 26.3% from 1950 to 1960. Popula- tion loss accelerated during 1960-1970 when the number of residents declined by 35.8%. During 1970-1980 population decreased by 32.8%, nearly twice the City-wide population loss of 17.5%. Housing units declined in a manner similar to population losses for the 1950-1980 period. In 1950 there were 3,376 dwelling units in Smoketown. By 1970 this number had dropped to 2,035 units. Plan- ning Commission estimates for 1980 (in the absence of Census data) indicate another 621 units were lost during the last decade, reducing the amount of housing in Smoketown to 1,414 dwelling units. This represents a loss of nearly 60% of the neighborhood's housing stock since 1950. Age of structures, building conditions, archaic subdivision patterns (including small lots and alley buildings) and the growth of commercial use contributed to the loss of dwelling units in the Smoketown Neighborhood.

Smoketown residents are predominantly black. In 1970, blacks made up 74.7% of the population; in 1980 this percentage rose to 79:5%. I TABLE 1-5: POPULATION AND DWELLING UNIT CHANGE 1950-1980, SMOKETOWN

Census Tract 61 pt. 62 63 pt. Total

Dus pop. Dus pop. Dus Pop. Dus Pop. 1950 1191 3230 1883 6346 302 1077 3376 10653

1980 N.A. 506 N.A. 2449 N.A. 435 N.A. 3390

Change 1950 - 1980 N.A. -2724 N.A. -3897 N.A. -642 N.A. -7263

Sources: 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980 Census of Population and Housing: Louisville KY-IN; 1980 dwelling unit count is derived from the Planning Commission windshield survey. The black population is concentrated in Census Tract 62 where 96.2% of the population was black in 1980 (2,357 persons). This tract was 93% black in 1970. The percent black in Census tract 61 and the portion of Census Tract 63 in Smoketown neighborhood was 34.0% and 38.5%, respectively, in 1980. Census Tract boundaries are shown on Figure 1-6. The age structure of the population in Smoketown has shifted since 1950, with the percent elderly (age 65 and over) growing from 6.9% of the population in 1950 to 16.5% in 1970. During the same period the City of Louisville's population age 65 and over rose from 8.3% to 12.3%. This indicates that the elderly in Smoketown are being left behind in the exodus, perhaps because they own their own homes, have closer ties to the neighborhood, or cannot, because of fixed incomes, afford housing elsewhere.

The youthful component of population grew from 1950 to 1960 when it was 32% and 40.0% of the population, respectively; but dropped again during the next decade to 35.2% of the population in 1970. This reflects a broadly based increase in the number of children born in the post-World War I1 period known as the "baby boom". The population aged 18 and under in Louisville as a whole grew from 29% in 1950, to 35%, in 1960, and declined to 34% in 1970. The youth population in Smoketown has fluctuated in response to larger trends in the nation's age structure, and has remained higher than the City's percentage of persons under 18. However, Smoketown experienced a much larger decline between 1960 and 1970 than the City as a whole. The number of persons age 18 and under in the Smoketown neighborhood is higher than would be expected for a declining neighborhood. This can be attributed to two factors: the population is predominantly black (blacks have higher birth rates than whites) and the existence of Sheppard Square Public Housing with 421 family units, which increases as a percent of the total housing stock as units are lost elsewhere in the neighborhood. The age profile of Smoketown residents is provided in Appendix A.

Appendix C: Employment and Income 1950-1980, Smoketown, illustrates the shifts in employment and income that have occurred during the last 30 years. Overall unemployment reached 10% in 1960, rising from 7.6% in 1950, and then dropping back to 7.8% in 1970. These rates are higher than County averages throughout the three decades and was twice the 1970 County-wide rate (3.9%). At the time of this writing, 1980 data is not available at the Census Tract level, but the County-wide rate has been fluctuating between 7 and 8% during the last year. Unemployment rates in the Smoketown neighborhood are probably substantially higher than the County-wide rate. The labor force participation rate (percent of all persons 16 years old and over who are employed or seeking employment) in Smoketown has dropped steadily from 1950 to 1970. In 1950, 57.7% of men and women age 16 and over were labor force participants. By 1970 the labor force participation rate in Smoketown was 48.7% this was 82% of the County's labor force participation rate. Blue collar workers in the Smoketown neighborhood have declined as a percent of the total employed persons throughout the 1950-1970 period, dropping from 52.1% to 39.2%. White collar workers dropped in relative numbers from 1950 to 1960, but recovered by 1970 to the 1950 rates, approximately 24%. Service workers (including domestic workers and food services, etc.) rose in percent sharply from 1950 to 1960 but dropped back slightly to 37.1% in 1970. The percent of white collar workers in Smoketown in 1970 was about half the County rate while service workers were three times more common than the County rate. The percent of blue collar workers in Smoketown equalled the County-wide rate. Smoketown is a low income neighborhood. The per capita income of Smoketown residents was $1,774 in 1970, 55.6% of the County average and 59.8% of the City of Louisville average. Estimates of median income (the middle point of incomes in Smoketown) show a decline in income in Smoketown relative to the County between 1960 and 1970. The estimated median income of all families and individuals in the neighborhood was $2,779 in 1959, (54.4% of the County median) and was only $3,193 in 1970 dropping to 38.4% of the County Median. Educational levels were also very low in the Smoketown neighborhood. The percent of high school graduates decreased from 1950 to 1960 but rose from 1960 to 1970, reaching 20.8% compared to 47.3% County- wide. The percent of persons age 25 and over who have not completed high school rose from 81.1% to 84.8%, 1950 to 1960, and then dropped to 79.2% in 1970, about twice the County rate. The median years of school completed by Smoketown residents were also lower than the County median. In 1960 Smoketown residents had a median number of years of school of 8.4, while the County's median rate was 9.9 years. In 1970, the medians were 8.8 years for Smoketown and 11.6 years in the County. Crime is a major problem in Smoketown. Appendix D shows neighborhood and City crime rates. Crime statistics are presented in terms of the number of crimes per 100,000 persons, to allow comparison of the City and neighborhood statistics. Crime rates are significantly higher in Smoketown than in the City as a whole. The homicide and robbery statistics greatly exceed the incidence of these crimes in the larger community. 4. Patterns and Trends Land use, zoning and demographic information of the preceding sections indicate trends affecting land use in Smoketown. These trends are identified below. Residential land-use has changed significantly in Smoketown. The number of dwelling-units has declined steadily since 1950. The largest loss of dwelling-units occurred between 1950 and 1960. The rate of dwelling-unit loss declined between 1960 and 1970, but increased significantly during the 1970's. The 1981 estimated dwelling-unit count indicates a loss of over 30% of the area's housing since 1970. The decline in residential use is the most significant land-use trend in Smoketown. This trend exists throughout the neighborhood, with some variations. The five residential blocks east of Shelby Street have experienced a lesser decline of residential use, whereas, alley housing has been substantially reduced. Several factors contribute to the decline. The age of the housing stock and construction type (wood-frame) do not favor preservation of existing buildings. Inadequate maintenance over the years has contributed to the loss of houses. Increasing structure demolition and vacant land are basic factors in the decline of residential uses. There are currently about 220 vacant lots in Smoketown (including the large vacant sites at Clay and Caldwell and at Finzer and Jackson). The majority of these lots (64%) have become vacant since 1970, and 15% are the result of demolitions between April 1979 and July 1981. A widespread pattern of demolition without new construction is evident in Smoketown. Residential units account for most of the structures torn down. Demolition resulting in vacant lots (without productive use of sites after building clearance) has been concentrated between Shelby and Preston Streets since 1970. Demolition of structures and creation of parking lots has occurred in four areas since 1970. The new parking lots are located along Logan, Shelby and Preston Streets. Figure 1-9 shows demolition and new construction since 1970. New construction trends in Smoketown also corroborate the decline in residential use. There has been no residential construction in the neighborhood since 1970. There has been little new construction of any type in the neighborhood. Since 1970, eight sites have been developed for commercial uses and one each for industrial, religious and government uses. New construction has been concentrated outside the residential core of Smoketown. Property maintenance is inadequate and structural conditions are declining in Smoketown. This pattern is evident from the windshield survey conducted for this Plan. A significant majority of residential structures, 83%, are substandard; in contrast, the 1960 Census showed that only 33% of structures were substandard. Although the criteria used in the two studies differ, the broad difference between the two figures indicates a deterioration in structural conditions. There is no indication of a housing rehabilitation trend in Smoketown. Structural decline is less severe, among nonresidential structures, but still represents a problem. 49% of these buildings are in need of major repairs. Property-tax delinquency is widespread in Smoketown. Serious tax delinquency, either three years or more than $100 delinquent, has been calculated by the Community Development Cabinet. There are approximately 210 seriously delinquent parcels in Smoketown. They are concentrated in the residential core of the neighborhood, but also occur along Broadway. Tax delinquency indicates property owners are less committed to maintaining and investing in their holdings. In some cases, abandonment has occurred. The major trend in zoning has been to reduce industrial zones in residential areas. The neighborhood's initial zoning designated most of Smoketown for industrial use. Several rezonings between 1931 and 1969 expanded residential zoning to reflect the existing Land use. The 1969 rezoning established the existing pattern, shown on Figure 1-3. There has been 1ittle.change in zoning since that time. Three rezonings were approved in the 1970's; these changes . expanded commercial zoning in Smoketown. Population has declined steadily since 1950. The neighborhood has lost 68% of its people and 60% of its housing stock. The proportion of the neighborhood over age 65 has more than doubled. The unemployment rate has been consistently higher than the County-wide rate. Smoketown historically has been a low-income neighborhood; median income has declined relative to the median income in Jefferson County as a whole. a. Supply and Demand Information presented above provides an indication of the level of demand for the various land uses in Smoketown. Several indicators point to a lack of demand for housing. The vacancy rate in Smoketown doubled between 1960 and 1970; R. L. Polk Company data for 1978 shows the area's vacancy rate to be twice as high as the City-wide rate. The decline in dwelling units, 608 since 1950, also shows a lack of demand. Widespread demolition has occurred due to market conditions that result in inadequate property maintenance and ultimately lead to abandonment and demolition. No new residential construction has occurred in recent years. This indicates that existing lot patterns and neighborhood conditions discourage reuse of cleared sites in residential areas. Demand appears to be fairly strong for nonresidential uses. The downtown-related commercial uses in the northwest corner of Smoke- town and along Broadway have utilized most of the available land. Some vacant sites exist, most notably the old Hillerich and Bradsby site. Significant investment has occurred for commercial development, such as the Spencerian Office Building and adjoining commercial uses, NAVE, and the NAPA building. Discussions with businesses along Logan Street indicate that most of the industrial and warehousing structures are fully occupied. Similar structures along Floyd Street are also occupied for the most part.

The record of zoning change requests since 1970 indicates the limits of commercial demand for sites in Smoketown. No major rezonings were sought that would allow commercial expansion in the core of the neighborhood. R. L. Polk Company data shows that the portion of Smoketown between Preston and Shelby Streets has had a large increase in vacant commercial units between 1975 and 1978. The long-term vacancy rate in this area is twice the City-wide rate. Older commercial structures along Broadway and especially in the interior of the neighborhood exceed the demand for retail commercial structures of this type and location.

5. Issues and Problems Land use issues and problems facing Smoketown are presented here. These issues and problems were identified using a variety of sources. A problem identification session was conducted with the Smoketown Community Development Association, summarized in Appendix E. A survey of neighborhood businesses, summarized in part 5.c of the Economic Development section of this plan pointed out neighborhood needs. In addition, Census data, field surveys and meetings with the Smoketown Task Force indicated issues and problems significant in Smoketown. a) Decline of Residential Use Smoketown was developed as a predominantly residential area, and remains so today. The neighborhood's housing stock has declined to a major degree, however. The population and number of dwelling units are greatly decreased. The neighborhood has experienced no construction of new housing. Most of the remaining housing is in bad condition, some of it is beyond repair. Vacant and abandoned housing occurs in nost parts of the neighborhood. The condition of existing structures discourages investment in the neighborhood. Housing rehabilitation and new construction is unlikely given the state of housing in the neighborhood. Commercial uses in the area also detract from housing in Smoketown. Vacant or poorly maintained commercial structures are a problem, as are offensive uses (e.g. auto repair). The future mix of land uses in the residential core and the control of nuisances are significant issues for the neighborhood. b) Vacant Lots

Related to the decline of housing is a vacant lot problem. Over 200 lots are vacant, most of them formerly used for homes. Maintenance of these properties is inadequate; high weeds, litter and illegal dumping are common among vacant lots. Vacant lots having these problems discourage maintenance and improvement of adjoining property. Vacant lots could be considered an opportunity for Smoke- town. They are potential sites for redevelopment that are fully served by existing streets and utilities, and that do not require relocation and demolition costs. This opportunity is limited by several factors. Where vacant lots occur side-by-side, a larger parcel of land can be assembled that is easier to redevelop. In Smoketown, however, many of the vacant parcels are scattered between existing structures. Individual lots in Smoketown are typically 25 to 30 feet wide; this size is not easily developed under modern building practices. Where adjoining parcels are vacant ownership by several persons makes site assembly difficult. Alley lots are a distinct aspect of Smoketown's vacant lot problem. Formerly used for housing, most alley lots are now vacant and maintenance is a problem. The future use of these lots and provisions for maintenance are an important issue for Smoketown.

C) Crime Smoketown's high crime rate affects residents and businesses ad- versely, and discourages neighborhood revitalization. Respondents to the business survey indicated that crime is by far the greatest problem in doing business in Smoketown. New stores and residential development will be more difficult to attract as a result of the area's crime rate and the commonly-held perception that the neighborhood is unsafe. d) Inadequate 1.Jeighborhood Stores Smoketown lacks neighborhood commercial uses -- a full-size grocery, drug store, discount store, etc. The existing commercial strip along Preston Street is largely vacant and structures are in disrepair. There is no commercial hub or shopping center in the neighborhood. Stores that do exist in the neighborhood do not offer the variety or quality of merchandise desired by residents. Liquor stores and taverns occupy many of the commercial structures in the interior of the neighborhood. e Demographic Trends Changes in the characteristics of Smoketown residents affect the area's revitalization potential. Several indicators show the neighborhood to be declining; unfortunately these trends can only be substantiated by 1970 Census data. Analysis-of the detailed findings of the 1980 Census is necessary to determine if these trends have continued or diminished. Available data shows Smoketown to be a declining area with several characteristics that would discourage substantial investment in the neighborhood. The population is declining rapidly. The remaining population is becoming increasingly elderly and black. Income has declined relative to the County-wide median income. The labor force participation rate has declined significantly. Data available through 1970 showed that the residents of Smoketown were becoming less able to effectively deal with the neighborhood's land use problems and development needs. f) Recreation Smoketown is in need of additional recreation opportunities. Ballard Park requires a major overhaul of its facilities and improvement in general appearance. Additional recreation facilities, especially tennis courts and playground equipment are needed in the area. g) Undefined Areas Portions of Smoketown are undergoing transition and are not clearly defined in terms of land use. These areas contain many vacant sites, vacant structures, a mixture of land uses, and underutilized structures. Figure 1-1 shows areas that lack well-defined land uses. Area 1 is largely vacant, area 2 is entirely vacant. Both areas lie between solidly commercial and residential areas. Resi- dential use is declining and commercial use is increasing in area 3. Vacant and under-used commercial structures also characterize this portion of the neighborhood. A clear direction in future land use should be established, both to encourage productive use of these three areas, and to protect the adjoining commercial corridor and residential core. h) Development Potential Under Existing Zoning Existing zoning defines the type of development permitted in Smoke- town. In several areas zoning differs significantly from existing land use. The residential core is zoned for a higher intensity residential use than currently exists. This could be considered beneficial, offering an incentive to new residential construction. Conversely, it would allow new development not in keeping with the scale and character of existing homes. Two residential areas are zoned to allow nonresidential use. Industrial zoning threatens the existing homes east of Preston between Breckinridge and Caldwell Streets. Industrial zoning between College and Caldwell restricts commercial use of structures and sites in this area, and may reduce the area's development potential. i) Industrial Area and Commercial Corridor For the most part, these areas are fully developed and in good condition. Areas of vacant lots and structures need to be addressed. Improved maintenance could provide opportunities for jobs and for enhancement of Smoketown's image. Expansion of industrial and commercial corridors into the residential core is a potential liability. Parking lots on the west side of Logan Street have reduced the housing stock and detracted from adjoining homes.

6. Government and Non-Government Actions The land use issues and problems identified in the preceding section are the result of numerous actions taken by government agencies and others. In this section of the plan, the major actions and the parties responsible for them are summarized. Zoning is the most significant single government action affecting land use. The initial zoning of Smoketown occurred in 1931. Zoning classifications applied to the neighborhood contrasted sharply with the land use which existed at that time. Although the neighborhood's predominant use was residential, all but a small part of the area was zoned for industry. In this instance, zoning was being used to encourage a desired future land-use pattern. Industrial zoning brought very little industry to Smoketown, but did allow a great mixture of uses to locate in the area because any type of use was permitted in industrial zones at that time. Today's mixture of land uses, land-use conflicts and the areas of indeterminant (undefined) future land-use can be attributed in part to the area's original zoning. Industrial zoning has also contributed to the deterioration of residential uses. The pro-industry philosophy of the 1931 zoning plan was replaced during the 1960's. The Near East Side Rezoning Plan of 1969 was developed at the request of the Board of Aldermen. The resulting zoning changes replaced industrial zoning with commercial and high-density residential zoning, elimi- nating most non-conforming uses. The construction of the Kentucky Turnpike (Interstate 65) affected land use in Smoketown. Residential uses were cleared for the expressway's right-of-way. Housing along Brook Street has deteriorated, in part due to the noise, air pollution and nonresidential character of the expressway. Construction of the Sheppard Square housing project is a significant government action that has reinforced the residential nature of Smoketown. The Housing Authority of Louisville constructed the project, covering four blocks, in 1943. Efforts to construct subsidized housing have been less successful at the former woolen mill site on Caldwell Street. The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development intended to develop housing on this site, but funding did not materialize. Similar attempts by the site's current owner, Lampton Street Baptist Church, also have not received funding. In addition to these actions, conditions in Smoketown today are the result of inaction on the part of government and neighborhood residents. The City has provided basic services to Smoketown, but has not undertaken any significant redevelopment program there. Both Urban Renewal and Community Development programs have focused on other parts of the City. Smoketown was left to its own resources, while areas of worse conditions were cleared and redeveloped and areas of better conditions received incentives for revitalization. Inaction on the part of Smoketown residents has been a factor in these funding decisions. Until recently, no neighborhood organization effectively represented Smoketown's interests. The recent formation of the Smoketown Community Development Association is a positive step toward achieving this goal. The Association has begun building its membership and provides a forum for neighborhood concerns. This group was instrumental in obtaining funds for development of the neighborhood plan. B . PROJECTIONS This section of tho plan projects future conditions in Smoketown, if current trends and government programs remain unchanged. Projected future conditions are compared to the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Strategies. These documents indicate desired conditions in the Citv of Louisville. This com~arisonindicates ways in which public policy, as stated in the ~bm~rehensivePlan and Community Development Strategies, would be met in Smoketown. 1. Projected Future Conditions Smoketown will continue to decline in several respects, if current trends and the level of government commitment to the neighborhood remain unchanged. In the residential core of Smoketown, residential land use will decrease as a result of continued abandonment and demolition of housing. Continued deterioration of the housing stock, which is both a cause and effect of declining residential use, is also likely. An increase in vacant land and the associated maintenance problems can be anticipated. Some increase in commercial and industrial uses may occur in the parts of the residential core along Preston Street currently zoned for these uses. No new residential construction or significant housing rehabilitation would occur. If current trends continue, the commercial corridor along Broadway will continue to be well utilized. A variety of region-serving commercial uses, that benefit from the proximity to Downtown and the Medical Center and from the high volume of traffic on Broadway, will occupy this area. The industrial area may be less in demand. Existing structures are older and most are multi-story. Most industrial uses prefer single-story construction. In addition, there is little space available for horizontal expansion, truck loading or parking. The large industrial structures east of Logan Street may in the future be vacant or only partially used. The "undefined areas" of Smoketown will continue to have vacant sites, vacant structures and region-serving commercial uses. The remaining residential use will likely be demolished or converted to small-scale commercial operations. The neighborhood commercial strip along Preston Street will consist of declining structures, either vacant or supporting marginal shops. A distributor/warehousing use or other regional commercial use is the probable future use of vacant sites between Finzer and Jacob, and between Finzer Alley and Broadway. 2. Comparison of Desired and Projected Future Conditions The projected future conditions were compared with the Comprehensive Plan for Louisville and Jefferson County and the Citv of Louisville =unity Development Strategies. ~hesedocuments indicate desired conditions in City neighborhoods. The comparison indicates that these desired conditions will not be attained in Smoketown if current trends and government programs remain unchanged. Table 1-6 contains the guidelines that are most relevant to projections for Smoketown. Guideline R-2 urges creation of housing revitalization in older neighborhoods; revitalization appears unlikely under the status quo. The expansion of sound, affordable housing also appears unlikely. Smoketown does offer low-cost housing, but much of it is not in good condition. Further, the housing supply is shrinking rather than growing. Guideline C-6 states that commercial uses are appropriate in older residential areas provided nuisances and land-use conflicts do not arise. Expansion of commercial uses in residential areas may result in nuisances; existing zoning allows expansion of this type. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the need for additional shopping facilities in older areas with unmet needs. Guideline C-11 recommends governmental action to encourage the provision of such facilities. No programs of this type have been created to address shopping needs in Smoketown. Finally, the Plan recommends that measures be taken to prevent industries from creat-- ing nuisances for nonindustrial uses. Industrial expansion in Smoketown that is permitted by existing zoning may result in land- use conflicts. The City's Community Development Strategies are another yardstick to measure the desirability of maintaining the status quo in Smoketown. Three of the overall goals adopted by the ~ommunit~~~evelo~ment Cabinet are relevant to land use in Smoketown: "improve the City's existing housing stock", "create a climate in the City for private sector construction of new housing", and "create a favorable business climate". None of these goals would be fulfilled under a continuation of existing trends and government programs. The housing stock would continue to decline and new construction is highly unlikely. Crime, neighborhood decline and parking problems detract from Smoketown's desirability as a business location. The programs designed to achieve the Strategies are focused in the eleven Neighborhood Strategy Areas (NSA's) to achieve the greatest impact. Smoketown has not been designated an NSA, and therefore is not eligible for most of the programs that would realize the goals listed above. Table 1-6

Comprehensive Plan Guidelines Related to Projections for Smoketown R-2 Create housing redevelopment, rehabilitation and reinvestment opportunities in older and declining neighborhoods. R-16 Expand opportunities for people to live in sound, affordable housing in locations of their choice by: a) providing for lower-cost housing in dispersed locations throughout the community, including identification of suitable sites for lower-cost housing and necessary actions to assure construction; b) using incentives to encourage a mixture of housing types and costs for new housing; C) upgrading existing housing, and d) keeping overall housing costs as low as possible without sacrificing basic health, safety and welfare objectives. C-6 Allow commercial uses in: ...... b) older or redeveloping residential areas where the commercial use does not create nuisances and is compatible with the surroundings ......

C-11 Provide incentives and assistance to retain, expand or locate new commercial facilities in older areas which have exhibited a need that has been unmet for many years.

1-6 Take all measures necessary to prevent industrial uses from causing nuisances to surrounding developments.

Source: Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission, -The Comprehensive Plan, December 1979. C. ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Recommended strategies to address the problems facing Smoketown are covered in this section of the plan. Using information on existing conditions, past trends and projections, a set of issues was defined. The issues are a refinement of the topics listed in part A.5, to allow consideration of alternative strategies. Several alternative strategies were generated for each issue, and were evaluated by the Smoketown Task Force of the Smoketown Community Development Association (SCDA) and the planning staff. The advantages and disadvantages associated with each alternative were assessed, including the probable effects of each alternative and its feasibility. This process was carried out at meetings held October 7 and November 12, 1981. The alternatives selection process is summarized here. Issues are presented by area, and alternatives are listed. The rationale for selecting the chosen alternative is stated. Finally, the recommended land-use plan is presented. 1. Generation of Alternative Strategies Area-wide Issues and Alternatives a. Issue: Inadequate Neighborhood Shopping Opportunities. Alternatives: (1) Continue the existing quality and mix of shops in Smoketown and rely on facilities in other neighborhoods. (2) Improve the mix and quality of shops available in existing commercial structures throughout the neighborhood. (3) Re-establish Preston Street as the hub of neighborhood commercial, improving the mix and quality of shops available in existing structures. (4) Improve vacant sites and facilities along Broadway to meet neighborhood shopping needs of Smoketown and Phoenix Hill. (5) Develop a new center to meet neighborhood shopping needs. (6) Develop a new commercial center in conjunction with the existing commercial strip along Preston Street. A combination of alternatives (4) and (5) was considered the best response to the area's shopping needs. A new center would be more likely to attract the types of stores desired in the area (grocery, drug store, laundromat, discount store) than could be achieved through reuse of existing structures. At the beginning of the alternative selection process, development of a shopping center along Preston Street was recommended, to stimulate revitalization of the former commercial strip. However, discussions with developers indicated that the vacant site along Preston was too small, and that the increased visibility and traffic volumes associated with a site along Broadway were essential to a commercial center's viability. As a result, the recommendation was changed to focus on Broadway. This approach should increase the proposed center's ability to serve residents of Phoenix Hill, Butchertown and the lower Highlands. At the same time, inprovement of the existing commercial structures along Preston Street as locations for neighborhood or regional commercial uses in endorsed by the Task Force. Development of the commercial center is closely related to residential use in Smoke- town. Concentration of shops along the Broadway commercial corridor may reduce nuisances created by stores in residential areas. Construction of the center needs to be carried out in coordination with improvements to adjacent housing. b. Issue: Parks and Recreation Opportunities in Smoketown. Alternatives: (1) Do nothing (existing facilities are satisfactory). (2) Improve the facilities at Ballard and Lampton Parks. (3) Develop the vacant area at Clay and Caldwell as the new Ballard Park. (4) Concentrate resources on organized recreation programs, rather than facilities.

Alternatives (2) and (4) are recommended. 1i The Parks Department does not have adequate funds to acquire the vacant site at Clay and Caldwell and develop it for a park. Improvement of the existing parks, including provision of better facilities and additional landscaping, is recommended. In addition to improved facilities increased recreation programs are also needed. Additional organized recreation programs would not entail major expenses and would respond to the area's loitering problem. Residential Core of Smoketown a. Issue: Appropriate Future Land Use i Alternatives: ~ (1) Maintain the area's predominantly residential character and restrict commercial and industrial uses to their current locations. (2) Allow existing nonresidential uses to expand, where such expansion would be compatible with the residential use. (3) Allow new commercial and industrial development within the residential core. Alternatives (1) and (2) are recommended. This approach would strengthen the residential character of Smoketown, and would restrict the Broadway commercial corridor and industrial area to the limits shown on the Figure 1-1. Limiting commercial expansion in the residential area would aid in development of a neighborhood commercial center. Existing firms within the residential core provide jobs and make productive use of land in the neighborhood. Limited expansion of existing firms where compatible with residential uses, may enable them to remain in the neighborhood and contribute to its revitalization. Compatible expansion of this type are supported. Alternative (3) may be desirable in some instances; such new development can be achieved through the zoning change process. b. Issue: Vacant and Unmaintained Lots That Detract from the Neighborhood's Appearance. Alternatives: (1) Do nothing. (2) Encourage maintenance of vacant lots (cut weeds, pick up litter). (3) Encourage residents to acquire adjacent vacant lots and maintain them as yard space. (4) Promote construction of new housing on vacant lots. (5) Acquire and consolidate vacant lots and make them available for redevelopment as a unit. Alternatives (4) and (5) are the principal recommendations. Where there are numerous vacant lots and the remaining housing is in bad condition, alternative (5) is recommended. This approach allows the greatest flexi- bility in design of new development and is more likely to attract private developers and investors. Where the amount of vacant land is limited, alternative (4) is recommended. Both (4) and (5) would strengthen the residential nature of Smoketown.

Alternatives (2) and (3) are also recommended. They provide an immediate response to the existing problem, and offer a long-term solution for those areas where new construction cannot be induced. They would result in maintenance of vacant lots, curbing the deteriorating influence of weedy and littered lots. c. Issue: High Density Zoning (R-8 Apartment Zone) in the Residen- tial Core.

1-28 Alternatives: (1) Continue R-8 zoning, as an incentive to higher density residential development. (2) Downzone Smoketown to restrict future development to existing density levels.

Alternative ( 1) is recommended. The R-8 zone allows significantly greater residential densities and much larger structures than currently exist in Smoketown. However, R-8 zoning in the past has not resulted in incompatible development. It may have a positive effect on Smoketown, acting as an incentive to redevelopment by offering developers more options in new construction projects. The cost and efforts required to downzone (rezone to lower density) could more effectively be used in other neighborhood improvement measures at this time. In the future, increased development pressures may warrant rezoning the area for lower permissible densities. d. Issue: Existing Nonresidential Land Uses That Create Nuisances in the Residential Core. I Alternatives: I (1) Take no action. (2) Work with uses that create nuisances, identify and encourage them to modify elements of their operations that produce ill effects. (3) Encourage nonresidential uses to provide screening. (4) Relocate offensive uses outside the residential core of Smoketown. Alternatives (2) and (3) are recommended. These measures are low-cost, do not disrupt existing businesses, and seem appropriate in light of the level of nonresidential nuisance existing in Smoketown. Alterna- tive (4) may be justified in some instances, where serious nuisances occur. e. Issue: Appropriate Use of Alley Lots. Alternatives: (1) Support the continued use of alley lots for housing, including repair of existing alley housing, and infill housing on vacant alley lots. (2) Concentrate available funds on street-side housing and allow the housing market to determine the future of alley housing. (3) Promote consolidation of vacant alley lots with the street-side lot. (4) Where possible, consolidate alley lots to create a street tree nursery.

Alternatives (21, (3) and (4) are recommended. Although potentially offering good sites for housing infill, alley lots are less secure, because of their isolation from the street. In addition, alley housing has a negative image among the black community. As a result, alley lots are recommended for residential use only as part of a unit that faces on the street. Consolidation of alley lots with existing housing facing the street is recommended. Where a larger area is being redeveloped, alley lots can be used for parking or open space. The use of contiguous vacant alley lots in one or two locations for a street tree nursery is also recommended. Industrial Area of Smoketown a. Issue: Appropriate Future Uses Alternatives:

(1) Support the continuation and rehabilitation of existing residential uses. (2) Encourage infill development by industrial uses, and eventual replacement of residential uses. (3) Encourage full utilization of large structures (Ballard Mills, etc.) for a variety of uses. Alternatives (2) and (3) are recormilended. Available funds for housing rehabilitation should be focused in the residential core, and sites should be made available for industrial expansion. This approach would allow existing firms some area to grow and provide additional jobs without having to relocate outside the neighborhood. Housing demolition for parking lots west of Logan Street may diminish if industries concentrate their parking facilities within the designated industrial area. Full utilization of the large industrial structures may provide additional jobs and contribute to the neighborhood's revitalization. Commercial Corridor a. Issue: Appropriate Future Uses Alternatives: (1) Promote infill commercial development of any type (office, regional commercial). (2) Encourage development of a commercial center to meet the neighborhood shopping needs of Smoketown and Phoenix Hill. (3) Encourage full use of existing structures. All three alterna.tives are recommended. A portion of the corridor along Broadway is the recommended site for development of a neighborhood commercial center to serve Smoketown and adjacent areas. Other sites along Broadway are recommended for infill construction, to maintain the existing pattern of solid development and improve the area's maintenance and overall appearance. Occupancy of vacant structures is also recommended, to achieve the same results. Undefined Areas (Future Land Use Not Certain) a. Appropriate Future Land Use for Area 1 (between Shelby and Clay Streets). Alternatives: (1) Do nothing. (2) Encourage residential development on vacant sites. (3) Rqdevelop for residential use, through a combination of rehabilitation and new construction. (4) Encourage regional commercial uses (specialty shops, distributors, etc.) or offices. (5) Encourage neighborhood retail uses. Alternatives (2) and (4) are recommended. ~ The part of Area 1 north of Finzer Street abuts commercial development on the north, and has recently been improved for commercial use. This portion of Area 1 provides space for commercial expansion, without requiring relocation of residents. Although the area could be recommended for residential use as well, this site is more likely to attract commercial investment, and the funds necessary to redevelop the area for housing could be spent more effectively in other parts of Smoketown. The portion of Area 1 south of Finzer is recommended for residential infill to be compatible with existing homes along Shelby and Jacob Streets. b. Appropriate Future Use of Area 2 (Hillerich and Bradsby site) Alternatives: (1) Do nothing. (2) Encourage residential use. (3) Encourage commercial or office use. (4) Encourage use of the site as a neighborhood commercial center. (5) Encourage health-related uses to locate on the site. Alternatives (3) and (5) are recommended. The proximity of this large vacant parcel to the medical center and Broadway makes it suitable for a variety of office, wholesale, and health-related uses. This site was seriously considered as the location for the proposed neighborhood commercial shopping center, but its size and location do not meet the criteria for this type of development. c. Area 3 (Area west of Preston south of Jacob) Alternatives: (1) Do nothing, allow commercial and light industrial uses to expand. (2) Improve existing residential uses in the area. (3) Encourage revitalization of neighborhood commercial strip along Preston Street.

Alternative (1) is the primary recommendation for this area. This area's proximity to the expressway, Downtown and the medical center makes it an attractive location for various commercial and warehousing operations. Real estate costs are lower than in Downtown, making Area 3 a hospitable environment for new businesses. Full use of the area's sites and structures is recommended. Alternative (3) is also recommended. Revitalization of the existing commercial strip would improve the area's appearance, and would encourage investment in adjoining commercial and residential properties. Although the neighborhood commercial services would be focused on Broadway, neighborhood-serving uses that can make use of the structures along Preston Street are encouraged to do so. Finally, it is recommended that the existing cluster of residential structures at Brook and Breckinridge be preserved. The structures along Brook Street are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Together with the houses facing Breckinridge, they constitute a viable cluster of residential use. Office use of these structures is also consistent with the goal of preserving them. 2. Recommended Land-Use Plan The Recommended Land-Use Plan for Smoketown presents recommendations and criteria for future land-use and development in the neighborhood. The plan was developed as a means of addressing neighborhood problems identified by the Smoketown Task Force, neighborhood businesses, and the Planning Commission staff. The land-use plan consists of a set of guidelines and a future land-use map (Figure 1-7). The guidelines contain the recommendations for the neighborhood; the map serves to illustrate some of the guidelines and define areas for which specific land-use recommendations have been made. The guidelines are organized according to their geographic area of application. The problem identification and land-use alternatives evaluation process conducted with the Task Force during the Fall of 1981 is the primary source for the guidelines. The Task Force approved these guidelines at a meeting conducted on January 6, 1982. The recommended land-use ~lanis an awwlication of the aoals and policies contained in theA~omprehensi;e Plan and omm mu nit^ Develop- ment Strategy to the specific conditions existing in Smoketown. Once the recommended plan is approved- - by the Board of Aldermen, it will be used in several ways. The neighborhood plan will be considered during development of annual budgets for both general revenue and Community Development Block Grant funds. Proposed City-wide programs and other plans affecting Smoketown will be reviewed for their relationship to the neighborhood plan. Future zoning change requests within the boundaries of Smoketown will be evaluated in light of this plan. The plan may also serve as the basis for rezonings initiated by the Board of Aldermen. a. Land Use Guidelines Residential Core (1) Maintain housing as the predominant land-use in Smoke- town's residential core. (2) Expansion of existing nonresidential uses in the residential core should occur only if it can be demonstrated that the existing use is compatible with surrounding homes and that the expansion would contribute to revitalization of the residential area. Creation of new commercial uses should occur only upon demonstration that the new uses would be compatible with existing housing and would meet residents' needs. (3) Encourage medium-high density (12 to 24 dwelling units per net acre) residential use as infill development on vacant lots. When adjoining vacant lots create large parcels of developable land, redevelopment as a unit is recommended. Use of vacant lots as community gardens or additional yard space for adjacent homes is recommended, if new construction cannot be achieved. (4) Provide for the maintenance of vacant lots until such time as they are returned to productive use.

(5) Utilize vacant alley lots: a) as additional yard space of street-side housing, b) as part of a larger housing redevelopment project, or C) as a site for a community tree nursery. (6) Work with existing nonresidential uses in the residential core to provide screening and to minimize nuisances created by their operations. (7) Improve the facilities and appearance of Ballard and Lampton Parks. Industrial Area (8) Encourage full utilization of sites and structures in this area for industrial purposes. (9) Minimize negative impacts of industry on adjacent housing by providing parking lots within the industrial area and by providing screening, where possible. Broadway Commercial Corridor (iO) Encourage full utilization'of sites and structures in this area for commercial purposes. (11) Develop the Hillerich and Bradsby site for commercial or health-care uses. Neighborhood Shoppin2 (12) Develop a commercial center on Broadway to serve the shopping needs of Smoketown and adjoining neighborhoods. (13) Conduct a market analysis to determine the size of the commercial center and the type of stores that can be supported, and the amount of land required for the center (see graphic) . (14) Develop the commercial center as a package including improving adjacent housing and refurbishing Sheppard Square. Mixed Use Area

(15) Support the expansion of commercial and light industrial uses to fully utilize sites and structures in this area. (16) Preserve the historically significant row of brick structures on Brook Street north of Breckinridge, through rehabilitation for residential or office use. NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATION During the planning process, neighborhood issues were identified that cannot be classified as land use, transportation or housing needs, yet are critical to achievement of the plan's recommendations in these areas. The following recommendations address these organi- zationai needs. (1) Develop a neighborhood organization that represents residents, businesses, and institutions in Smoketown, and can effectively promote the neighborhood's revitalization.

(2) Establish a grass roots program, with Police Department assistance, to reduce crime. (3) Establish a neighborhood-level program to provide job- training and employment opportunities at neighborhood businesses and in conjunction with the neighborhood housing repair, urban nursery and clean-up efforts. (4) Initiate actions to improve the neighborhood's appearance and build community spirit, including planting street trees and organizing a neiqhborhood event. b. Land Use Recommendations Map I The second component of the Recommended Land Use Plan for Smoketown is the Land Use Recommendations map, Figure 1-7. This map supple- ments the guidelines and defines the four subareas to which the guidelines apply. The map also shows infill development opportunities, vacant lots and vacant large-scale structures. Areas proposed for housing development, coordinated rehabilitation and new construction are indicated. Two potential sites for the urban nursery are delineated, as are the historic residential structures recommended for preservation. The three alternative sites for the neiqhborhood shopping center are shown in Figure 1-7. The results of the proposed market study will indicate the amount of land and the type of stores that are needed in the area. Using this information and the willingness of property owners to participate in this project it will be possible to select a site for the shopping development. The boundaries for alternative sites shown on Figure 1-7 do not indicate the exact location of the shopping center, nor do they indicate property to be acquired. Reuse of existing structures as part of the shopping center may be feasible. The value of the Smoketown Neighborhood Plan lies in its usefulness to the neighborhood through implementation of the recommendations. This section of the Plan identifies actions and programs to implement its recommendations. Parties responsible for the implementation actions and programs are also identified. Cost estimates are included for those measures that require special funding. 1. Neighborhood Shopping Center Several implementation actions are recommended to promote development of the shopping center proposed for one of three sites along Broadway between Jackson and Clay Streets. A feasibility study is necessary both to determine the projects financial viability and to establish what types of stores should be provided. The Small Business Institute of the University of Louisville's School of Business has indicated that it would perform a feasibility study for the proposed shopping center during the 1982 Fall semester. This study does not require funding, and would be completed by December. The neighborhood association and Planning Commission staff would assist the Small Business Institute in defining the scope of this study and in providing demographic data. If the feasibility study supports development of a shopping center, additional steps need to be taken. The Smoketown Community Develop- ment Association (SCDA) should contact neighborhood organizations in adjacent areas that would benefit from the shopping center, including Phoenix Hill, the Highlands and Germantown-Paristown. Neighbor- hood councils, the Clarksville Tenants Council and developers active in the Phoenix Hill project should be informed of the shopping center concept, and their support solicited. By building a larger constituency for this project, it will be easier to interest a developer and to gain public financial assistance. Development of the shopping center will require a staff person, to coordinate the project. The staff person would work with developers to get commitments to build and operate the center. In conjunction with private interests, the staff person would determine the need for public assistance for the project, including financing and land assembly. Possible sources of financial assistance include industrial revenue bonds, the Minority Venture Capital Corporation and Community Development funds. The City's eminent domain powers under Urban Renewal could be used to help acquire land for the development. The staff person should work with the Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Group, to determine what programs and agencies are available to help develop the shopping center. The person coordinating this project could be a staff member of either the City's Office of Economic Development or of the Smoketown Community Development Association (SCDA). In either case, some commitment from the Office of Economic Development to support the project is necessary. At this time, the Office limits its staff assistance to the CD target neighborhoods. A change in this policy or inclusion of Smoketown among the target neighborhoods is needed if the shopping center is to be built. In order to attract private sector investment in the proposed shopping center, it will be important to get commitments for improving the the adjacent housing. Final stages of the implementation process will entail coordination of shopping center construction and improvements to the surrounding housing. The Housing Authority's scheduled rehabilitation of Sheppard Square should precede or occur simultaneously with construction of the shopping center. Repair and redevelopment of nearby private housing should also be phased in relation to the shopping center (see Housing Section D.5). 2. Community Development Block Grants Establishing Smoketown's eligibility for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds is an important measure for plan implementation. This formerly required designation of the area as a neighborhood strategy area (NSA), but changes in the federal program revoked this requirement. It is undecided, at this time, whether the City will continue the NSA program or allow CDBG funds to be spent throughout the City. If the NSA program is kept, Smoketown should be given NSA status when commitments to other target neighborhoods are met. CDBG funds should be used in Smoketown to support neighborhood self-help efforts and to halt the area's decline. Community Development funds and staff assistance should be designed to strengthen Smoketown as a viable residential area for lower income persons. Accordingly, the program's goals would be different than other neighborhoods where extensive housing rehabilitation and new construction have been the immediate goals. Projects recommended for CDBG funding at the outset of the NSA program include: staff for the neighborhood task force, a tool library, a housing repair program that provides job training, zoning changes recommended in the neighborhood plan and a concentrated housing-code enforcement program. As neighborhood organization is improved and conditions in the neighborhood are enhanced, the NSA program should focus on housing rehabilitation and new construction. The MISCO housing rehabilitation loan program should be made available to Smoketown. 3. Zoning Zoning changes are recommended in several locations, to reinforce the Plan's land use recommendations. Figure 1-8 shows areas proposed for rezoning. The R-8 Apartment zone is recommended for certain areas along Preston Street south of Breckinridge. These areas are currently residential in use, but are zoned for industrial and commercial use (M-2, C-2). The change in zoning is proposed as a means of supporting housing in the residential area and reaffirms the concept that Smoketown's low-income housing stock is a resource to be preserved. The R-8 zoning provides a means of ensuring that any expansion of non-residential uses in these areas would be beneficial to the neighborhood and adjacent homes. This change is also necessary to permit residential infill development in the industrially zoned area. The most extensive zoning change is recommended for the mixed use area, between Preston and Floyd Streets. A change in zoning from M-2 Industrial to C-4 Commercial is recommended. A much wider range of uses is possible under the C-4 classification than under M-2, which allows only industrial use. As a mixed-use zone allowing commercial, office and industrial uses, C-4 zoning should contribute to the full use of sites and structures in the mixed use area and eliminate nonconforming use problems that hamper the expansion of present uses. Revitalization of the older commercial structures facing Preston Street through expansion, new construction and provision of parking lots, would be permitted under C-4 zoning. Retail uses currently not permitted in this two-block area would be allowed under C-4. This would enable wholesaling and storage operations, for which this area is well suited, to include retail sales. The industrially zoned area north of Finzer Street between Shelby and Campbell Streets is also recommended for rezoning. This area is part of the commercial corridor that parallels Broadway. C-2 Commercial zoning is recommended for these locations, to make the area's zoning consistent with existing land uses and with zoning in other parts of the commercial corridor. The M-2 zoning currently in effect in this area limits any new development to industrial uses. Given the size of these parcels and their location on or near Broadway, industrial development does not seem likely or appropriate in this location. The recommended change in zoning should expand the development potential of these sites. Existing commercial uses would be able to expand, and new commercial development could locate in this area. The final zoning recommendations of the Smoketown Plan relate to industrial uses west of Logan between Caldwell and Kentucky. The southwest corner of Logan and Caldwell is proposed for M-2 zoning. This change supports the existing uses on these sites and reinforces the plan's recommendation for industrial use in this area. In this same block, the plan recognizes the need to resolve the exlsting land use conflict at the corner of Kentucky Street and the alley. East of the alley, two shotgun houses are the only remaining residential uses; these homes directly abut the industrial use that occupies most of the block east of the alley. The Smoketown Plan does not recommend prospective rezoning--zoning changes that permit future expansion of a more intensive use than currently exists. However, a change to industrial use is appropriate in this area. Accordingly, the plan supports the rezoning of these two lots to the M-2 classification at some point in the future, upon submittal of an appropriate development plan. The development plan should demonstrate how the industrial use will be made compatible with the adjoining homes west of the alley. During the planning process, existing zoning in the residential area was evaluated. The R-8 Apartment classification allows professional offices and higher residential densities (58 units per acre) than currently exist in Smoketown. The R-7 classification (35 units per acre) more closely reflects existing residential density in the neighborhood. It was determined, however, that there was no need to change the residential zoning at this time. R-8 zoning has been in effect for many years and has not resulted in land-use conflicts in Smoketown. For now, the funds that would be needed for an area-wide rezoning can achieve greater benefits for the neighborhood if used on other implementation measures. Implementation of the above zoning changes depends upon action by the Board of Aldermen. The Board would either initiate the rezonings itself, or direct the Planning Commission to begin the rezoning process. The Board of Aldermen's participation in funding the rezoning process is also necessary. A preliminary estimate places the cost of the proposed zoning changes at $5,000. The Board may choose to appropriate the necessary funds from general revenue and/or Community Development funds. (Portions of the rezoning process may be eligible for CDBG funding). These funds would be used to prepare the rezoning application and the zoning change staff report, develop legal descriptions of affected properties, identify property owners, and provide notification to all affected property owners and owners of property adjacent to sites proposed for rezoning. As a plan implementation technique, zoning's effectiveness varies. Because zoning is a regulation and regulations are restrictive (negative) by definition, zoning tends to maintain the status quo by locking in existing land uses or trends; it cannot compel or encourage desirable (positive) changes to occur. It is most effective in preventing undesirable land-use change and limiting the type of development that occurs in the neighborhood. However, zoning can only enable desired change to occur. It can channel development, but cannot create development initiatives. Therefore, desired changes such as residential infill require implementation techniques beyond zoning. The effectiveness of zoning is determined by the quality of its administration. Adequate enforcement of the regulations, staff review of proposed development and responsible legisla- tive action are critical to effective zoning. 4. Planning Commission and BOZA Review Discussion thus far has dealt with zoning changes initiated by public bodies. Zoning changes and variances requested by individual property owners can also serve as vehicles for plan implementation. Such requests are reviewed against the community's Comprehensive Plan and the adopted neighborhood plan. Proposed development that requires a variance or change in zoning will be analyzed by the Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Adjustment (BOZA). Review by these bodies will aid implementation of several guidelines -- retaining residential use in the core area, limiting the intensity ~, ' i i ! of residential development, and establishing conditions for expan- ~.1 sion of nonresidential uses in the residential core. i 5. Acquisition of Tax Delinquent Sites 1 I An aggressive program to acquire seriously tax delinquent property I in Smoketown is recommended. As of September, 1981 there were approximately 70 vacant parcels that were delinquent more than three I j years or owed more than $100 in property taxes. Foreclosure would enable the City to acquire many of these vacant lots in lieu of payment of back taxes. Public ownership would enable the City to reduce the problem with unmaintained vacant lots. These lots would become an important resource for future redevelopment and infill construction projects. The City's Urban Land program has operated in this manner in the past, and currently owns 28 vacant lots in the neighborhood. Recent organizational changes in the City Law Depart- ment should allow the tax foreclosure program to be focused in Smoketown as an implementation tool for the neighborhood plan. It is recommended that the City Law Department make a concerted effort to acquire tax delinquent vacant sites in Smoketown. Once acquired by the City, vacant lots should be used to further the plan's land use and housing recommendations. Because demand for infill construction sites in Smoketown and City funds for redevelopment are both severely lacking at this time, "land-banking" is recommended. "Land-banking" is the practice of holding land for future development; the City has adopted this policy for the sites it presently owns in Smoketown. When new construction becomes feasible, the City-owned land will greatly reduce the cost of new development. Land that is reserved for future development in the meantime can still serve the neighborhood. City-owned sites could be used for community gardens (see Item 9) or used by adjacent property owners for additional yard space (Item 10). In the past, liability issues associated with use of City-owned property by other parties have discouraged the City from allowing such use. It is recommended that the City Law Department study the possibility of creating a use agreement, that would convey the "right-to-use" City- owned lots and would incorporate a waiver of responsibility. This could provide a no-cost means of maintaining vacant lots, while allowing Smoketown residents the advantage of additional open space, free of charge. The foreclosure program and development of use agreements could be carried out using existing staff and should not require additional funding.

I I 6. Actions to Encourage Residential Development 1 The Smoketown Neighborhood Plan proposes new housing construction in the residential core, to occupy vacant lots with street frontage. This infill development can take the form of individual homes constructed on existing vacant lots, or redevelopment of larger areas with new construction and housing rehabilitation combined. In either case, infill housing development will only occur over the long-term. Several factors currently discourage new construction in Smoketown. High interest rates have put new housing beyond the means of low and moderate-income people nationwide. The high rate of subsidized housing in the neighborhood (because of Sheppard Square) makes it ineligible for additional federally assisted housing units for families. Proposals for assisted housing for the elderly have been denied in the past, because of accessibility problems and the high crime rates. Other neighborhood needs have to be met before new construction can occur: clean-up of vacant lots, demolition of dilapidated structures, repair of existing homes and a lowering of crime problems. Once these issues have been addressed infill development can occur. The large vacant site at Clay and Caldwell Streets is a prime area for new housing construction. The availability of funds at that time will determine the extent of City participation in new housing construction. Potential implementation measures include the urban renewal powers to clear housing that is beyond repair and to create larger areas for redevelopment (see Housing Section D. 4). Interest rate subsidies, through the Kentucky Housing Corporation or FHA's 203 (k) program may sufficiently lower construction costs to make new housing affordable to low and moderate-income persons. Direct subsidies similar to the California Neighborhood Properties program could be supplied. Under this program, new construction can receive up to $10,000 per house to cover land costs, utility hook ups, and site improvements. This would require funding through the Community Development Cabinet. Plans for new homes that can be built on very narrow lots have been developed for California Neighborhood Proper- ties and can be furnished to Smoketown free of charge. City-owned property could be donated as an incentive to owner-occupants to build homes in the neighborhood. Other government programs to encourage new housing construction may be in existence by the time conditions in Smoketown are favorable for infill development. Private investment in the neighborhood would supplement public funds once neighborhood conditions had improved. 7. Community Nursery A nursery has been recommended to provide low-cost landscape materials for beautifying the neighborhood and job training for residents. The Smoketown Community Development Association has begun assembling a site for a nursery in the interior of the block bounded by Caldwell, Hancock, Kentucky and Jackson Streets. if additional space or an alternative site is needed, vacant lots along Coke Alley between Hancock and Clay Streets could be used. Donation of the "right-to-use" this land is being sought. Money or in-kind assistance is still needed for fencing, soil preparation, water lines, planting stock and tools; $5,000 to $10,000 would allow this project to get underway. Possible funding sources include local neighborhood businesses, firms that sell this type of equipment and supplies, foundations and the City of Louisville Community Development Cabinet. Technical assistance in establishing the nursery would be provided by the Parks Department and Trees, Inc. If there is adequate funding, a part-time employee to coordinate the nursery's operations is recommended. An employee would ensure continuity of \

1 : the volunteer work force, and could enhance the job training aspects 1 : of the volunteers' work experience. The SCDA should insure that the ! community nursery is an orderly operation that does not detract from ! I i adjacent land uses. As part of its use agreements with landowners, I I the association should indicate that land will be returned to its ! prior condition. !~rl 1i '/ I 8. Measures to Maintain Vacant Lots High weeds, illegal dumping and rodent problems on vacant unmaintained lots detract from the residential environment in Smoketown. Several measures are recommended to deal with this problem. As a first step, existing ordinances that require property maintenance should be enforced. The Smoketown Community Development Association (SCDA) should organize a task force to identify unmaintained vacant lots, where weeds and dumping are problems. Exact addresses should be collected and referred to the Environmental Division of the City Building Inspection Department. This office issues a citation to the property owner, and if the problem is not corrected, the necessary maintenance is done and a lien is placed against the property. Cleanup operations have recently been expedited by hiring a private contractor to supplement the Sanitation Department's efforts. The effectiveness of the contractor program would be enhanced by an organized effort allowing all the trouble spots in Smoketown to be cleaned up at one time. An effort by the SCDA to contact property owners directly and encourage them to correct maintenance problems is also recommended. Personal contact may encourage nore responsible property management, in some cases. Direct contacts in conjunction with increased enforcement efforts may provide an incent~veto property owners either to use their land or to dispose of it. Both of these means of addressing the vacant-lot problem require participation by the neighborhood association. No special funding is required. A third means of addressing the vacant-lot problem is a neighborhood work-day. This would require a greater commitment of time and effort by Smoketown residents. This approach is not a long-term solution, but can achieve very tangible results. A series of work days can correct existing maintenance problems, and help to increase residents' involvement with the neighborhood. The Sanitation Department will supply a dumpster and will haul away trash collected during clean-up campaigns. More permanent solutions to vacant lot maintenance problems are addressed under community gardens/yard space (Item 9) and programs to acquire vacant lots (Item 10). 9. Community Gardens Community gardening is recommended to help achieve several positive changes in Smoketown: maintaining vacant lots, improving the area's appearance, providing low-cost fresh foods, and building community pride. Community gardening has been shown to grow more than plants; research indicates that gardens can be the basis for improved self- image and a heightened sense of community. After conducting successful gardening programs (both flowers and vegetables) in New York and Chicago housing projects, residents have become more interested in maintaining their homes. Accordingly, it is recommended that the Housing Authority of Louisville consider establishing a program for Sheppard Square residents similar to the Cooperative Extension Service Urban Gardening Program. Gardens could be provided near Sheppard Square, and in other portions of the neighborhood where private yard space is not adequate. Information about gardening would be useful to those planning to use the community gardens as well as persons who would have garden plots at home. The Smoketown Community Development Association, Environmental Alternatives and the Cooperative Extension Service would be involved in establishing this program. The neighborhood association could contact owners of vacant sites, to secure permission to use vacant lots as garden sites. City-owned lots administered by the Urban Land program could also be used as garden sites. The gardening program sponsored by Jefferson County uses plots measuring twenty by forty feet; a typical lot in Smoketown would accommodate four lots this size. The neighborhood association would also need to publicize the program and manage it. The Cooperative Extension Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture provides technical assistance for community gardening projects, presentations and explanatory brochures. Environmental Alternatives could also provide valuable assistance to the gardening program, drawing on its ongoing urban demonstration garden. Several funding sources should be explored. Agricultural supply and equipment companies in the area might provide equipment and seeds free of charge or at reduced rates. The Farm Credit Banks and corporate sponsors should also be considered. Garden clubs might help create flower gardens in or near Sheppard Square. As part of program management, the neighborhood association should take responsibility for maintaining garden plots. Abandoned gardens and gardens not maintained after the end of the growing season can create weed and rodent problems. 10. Expansion of Yard Space Purchase of vacant lots by adjoining property owners is recommended, to reduce the weed, litter and dumping problems that exist in Smoketown. As part of the maintenance campaign described in Item 8, adjacent property owners could be furnished with information about the ownership of vacant parcels and be encouraged to buy them. Vacant lots in Smoketown can be purchased relatively cheaply, in the range of $500 to $1,200. For this investment, the property owner wduld gain control over land that in may cases has diminished the value of his own home; additional open space and recreation area would be obtained. If a trend of new construction on individual lots develops in Smoketown, the additional yard space could be reused as a building site. Vacant lots could be purchased by both adjoining property owners and split between them. This would reduce the cost for each individual, while providing for the maintenance of vacant sites. Dividing an existing lot would require the services of a surveyor, costing approximately $250, and a minor plat would have to be recorded with the Planning Commission (no fee). 11. Reducing "Clouded Titles" "Clouded Titles'' result when property changes hands without properly transferring ownership and recording the deed. This situation arises when a property owner dies without a will, and many individuals are heirs. Clouded titles are common in Smoketown and contribute to some of the neighborhood's problems. With numerous individuals having an interest in property, it is sometimes difficult to achieve a consensus on its use or sale. Inadequate maintenance and abandonment can result from clouded titles. To address this problem the neighborhood association should undertake two programs. To reduce future clouded title problems, the Smoketown Community Development Association should explain the benefits of a will and encourage residents to make one. The neighborhood association can assist residents by sponsoring a clinic on "holographic wills" -- these are handwritten documents that are legally valid and do not cost anything. The association should also provide information on fee schedules for residents who would prefer an attorney's assls- tance in making their wills. The second program would deal with the existing clouded title properties. The neighborhood association should work with the City Law Department to learn the process for clearing clouded titles. The association should provide this information and sample affidavits to interested residents. This action should help to reduce the decline and abandonment of properties in Smoketown. 12. Improvements for Neighborhood Parks Several actions are recommended to improve Ballard and Lampton Parks. Prior to any investment in facilities, a heightened sense of responsibility for the parks needs to be developed within neighborhood residents. The Smoketown Community Development Association should work with residents and park users to form committees that would help maintain the parks and watch out for them. A "park watch" program is necessary to reduce vandalism. Once this has been achieved, neighborhood residents should meet with the Parks Depart- ment to plan facilities improvements and park landscaping. The community nursery may provide stock for plantings; these are especially needed in Ballard Park. The Parks Department's Master Action Plan indicates a need for improving the existing basketball courts and playgrounds at Lampton Park, and for adding tennis courts at one of the parks. If neighborhood residents agree with these priorities, the neighborhood association should work with the Parks Department in requesting the necessary funding. Possible funding sources include the City's general revenue funds (for maintenance of existing facilities), Land and Water Conservation Fund, National Parks Service monies (for capital improvements) and the matching program administered by the Board of Aldermen (for self-help projects). This matching grant program provides funds to match labor and money contributed by neighborhood groups for improvement projects that the Parks Department supports. 13. Businessmen's Association An organization representing all businesses located in Smoketown should be established. A businessmen's association would provide a means of addressing common problems, including crime, deteriorating surroundings, inadequate lighting and parking needs. This association could approach the Police Department for assistance with the area's crime problems. Additional lighting could be provided through cooperative efforts of adjoining businesses. A businessmen's association would be an appropriate vehicle to promote cooperation between neighborhood residents and businesses. The association would offer an effective means for individual firms to aid the neighborhood association in efforts to clean up the area's litter and vacant-lot problems and to improve the housing stock. The association could also promote full occupancy of commercial buildings and land in the commercial corridor, (along Broadway) mixed use area and industrial area. An inventory of available sites and structures could be developed and provided to the Office of Economic Development. This would help the Office match up firms seeking space with the available locations, and could strengthen the demand for commercial property in Smoketown. Better property maintenance and increased job opportunities may result from increased occupancy of these portions of the neighborhood. The inventory should include the size of lots and buildings as well as structural conditions. Creation of a successful businessmen's association depends upon the commitment of area businesses to the concept, and their willingness to work together. The Smoketown Community Development Association should contact businesses in the area to determine if there is support for creating an association. The Chamber of Commerce and the recently organized Old Louisville Merchants Association may be able to help the SCDA and area firms to organize a businessmen's association. 14. Preserve Houses at Brook and Breckinridqe- Preservation of the cluster of large brick houses at the northwest corner of Brook and Breckinridge Streets is recommended. Although largely vacant at this time, the four structures facing Brook and the six facing Breckinridge could be used for residential or commercial/office purposes. The Landmarks Commission staff currently is working with state and federal agencies to determine if these structures constitute a mini-district that is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. If eligible, the property owners can seek this designation; and, upon acceptance by the Secre- tary of the Interior, significant tax advantages are accorded. Appropriate rehabilitation for residential use of properties on the National Register is eligible for a 25% investment tax credit under the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. If the structures are not eligible for the National Register, the 1981 tax law includes incentives for rehabilitation of buildings more than 40 years old. A 20% investment tax credit is provided for rehabilitation for commercial uses. Offices and general commercial would be suitable uses of these buildings, and appropriate in light of their location in the mixed-use area. The plan recommends that the Landmarks Commission continue its efforts to aid property owners desiring to preserve and upgrade this portion of the neighborhood. The Smoke- town Community Association should assist the Landmarks Commission by contacting property owners not currently involved in this project. 15. Screening of Non-residential Uses Landscaping and fencing are recommended to screen commercial and industrial uses from homes in Smoketown. Screening should be required as part of any zoning change or conditional use permit for businesses. A voluntary program is also recommended. The Smoketown Community Development Association should contact existing commercial and industrial uses that border residential areas and encourage them to provide screening. The proposed businessmen's association could also promote site improvements that incorporate screening, as part of its efforts to make the neighborhood more attractive as a location for businesses. A cooperative effort involving the community nursery and individual property owners could provide screening at little cost. 16. Strengthening Neighborhood Organization Nuch of the responsibility for implementing the Smoketown Neighbor- hood Plan rests with the neighborhood. Plan implementation is a long-range project that will require considerable effort. An effective neighborhood organization is essential if Smoketown is to begin the process of plan implementation. Several actions are recommended to enable the Smoketown Community Development Associ- ation (SCDA) to meet this challenge. Continuing funding for the SCDA staff is necessary to provide continuity and focused efforts for plan implementation. Possible funding sources include various institutions such as the United Presbyterian Church and the County's Community Assistance Fund. At such time as Smoketown becomes eligible for CDBG funds, an expanded staff might be funded as part of the neighborhood's allocation. The SCDA has arranged for office and meeting space, and future funding must be sought to maintain these facilities. Increased participation in the neighborhood association is also recommended. Creation of a businessmen's association was discussed earlier. This would enlist another element of Smoketown in efforts to improve the neighborhood. Linkage between the SCDA and the businessmen's association should be maintained. Participation of neighborhood churches in the SCDA should also be sought. The churches are a major force in the neighborhood, having close contacts with many residents. Efforts to increase resident participation in the SCDA are strongly recommended. The "town meeting" program administered by the Institute of Cultural Affairs has been used in many areas to motivate individuals in solving the community's problems. This program is a low-cost measure which may involve many Smoketown residents in the process of improving the neighborhood. 17. Actions to Build Community Spirit A social event that focuses on Smoketown's historic and ethnic heritage is recommended. An event would support efforts to improve the community by building a sense of pride among neighborhood residents and by bringing people from other areas into Smoketown. As the various programs to improve the neighborhood begin to take effect, the social event would be a means of publicizing the neighborhood's success and of encouraging others to get involved in Smoketown. The social event could directly benefit the neighborhood by providing a source of funds for the neighborhood association or various improvement projects. The neighborhood association would be responsible for organizing the social event. The association should contact groups in Old Louisville and Butchertown that have success- fully developed similar neighborhood events, for assistance in organizing one for Smoketown. The neighborhood association should contact businesses in the area for in-kind assistance and contri- butions. Other steps to strengthen the Smoketown community are posting neighborhood signs and writing a history of the neighborhood. Both of these measures are being done at this time through the SCDA. 18. Promoting Employment at Neighborhood Businesses Two programs can help implement the Plan's recommendation for job training and employment opportunities. The targeted jobs tax credit offers employer's significant tax breaks for employing persons from nine "targeted" groups, including welfare recipients and economically disadvantaged youths. Employers can take 50% of the first $6,000 of salary (up to $3,000) in tax credits the first year, and one-half that amount the second year. This program is administered by the Department of Human Resources' Bureau for Manpower Services. The Bureau screens potential en~ployeesand provides a tax voucher for the employer. It is recommended that the SCDA become informed about this program and provide information on the program to area businesses. The bureau for Manpower Services has indicated its willingness to make presentations to the neighborhood and to potential employers. The second program to encourage employment of Smoketown residents is CETA's on the job training program. Under this program, firms hire entry level unemployed persons and provide job training. A portion of the trainees' salary is paid by the federal government. The Louisville and Jefferson County Consortium of Manpower Planning administers this program. Significant changes to the on the job training program are anticipated in the near future as part of the CETA phase-out. However, a similar program probably will be created. It is recommended that the SCDA contact the Consortium and inform neighborhood residents about participating in job training programs. Depending on the make-up of the new program, it may also be advisable to alert area businesses of the incentives offered under the new program. 19. Job Training The Smoketown Plan recommends self-help programs for landscaping and housing repair. These projects can provide job training for neighborhood residents, provided there are adequate funds to hire supervisors for the programs. Because of the neighborhood's significant employment needs, it is recommended that the housing repair and community nursery projects emphasize providing work experience. These projects are described in Item 9 above, and in D. 1 of the Housing section. 20. Planting Street Trees The Plan recommends planting street trees to enhance Smoketown's image. The community nursery can provide young trees at a very low cost. Establishment of the community nursery is currently being pursued by the SCDA (see Item 9 above). Trees, Inc. and the Parks Department staffs are willing to assist the Smoketown Community Development Association in selecting types of trees that would be suitable for planting along rights-of-way in Smoketown. After the trees have reached a suitable size for planting along the street, planting can be carried out by the nursery staff, volunteers or Trees, Inc. Trees, Inc., provides planting and maintenance during the first year for selected neighborhoods that have street tree programs and supply the trees. The neighborhood association plays an important role in getting street trees for Smoketown. In addition to establishing the community nursery, the SCDA should develop an inventory of places where there is space for street trees and secure the permission of the adjacent property owner. The SCDA should also encourage property owners to plant trees on their own. 21. Volunteer Assistance A broad range of self-help programs requiring work by the Smoketown Community Development Association (SCDA) have been recommended in this Plan. To assist Smoketown residents in some of these efforts, assistance from outside the community should be sought. It is recommended that the SCDA seek possible sources of volunteer assistance, including former Smoketown residents now living in other parts of the City. The Metro United Way's Voluntary Action Center can help attract volunteers by publicizing projects through the mass media. This service is free of charge. Management of volunteers is necessary, to define tasks and guide activities of volunteer personnel. Activities which may appeal to volunteers include the neighborhood gardens project, organizing recreation programs, planting street trees and counselling. 22. Block Watch Program Establishment of a "block watch" program is recommended for the entire Smoketown area. A neighborhood crime watch is one of the best crime fighting tools available; the Louisville Division of Police has noted a considerable drop in crime rates in areas with block watches. The "block watch" program informs residents of who their neighbors are and encourages them to look out for each other. To be effective, 80% of the people along a block should participate. It is the neighborhood association's role to stimulate interest among area residents. Churches may also serve as catalysts for the "block watch" program. The Police Department provides a "starter kit" to help create the block watch and will meet with each block group once. The Police Department publishes a newsletter to keep block watches informed and bolster attendance, but responsibility for maintaining the organizations rests with the residents themselves. A "block watch" is a no cost implementation measure. It does require a commitment of time and effort from residents throughout Smoketown. 23. Expanding Recreation Opportunities The Plan supports the expansion of structured recreation programs for youths in Smoketown as a means of reducing vandalism and other crime problems. The Parks Department has operated a game room at the Presbyterian Community Center for some time and is in the process of taking charge of all the recreation activities at the center. The Parks Department intends to increase the variety of activities offered and to expand the community's participation in recreation programs. This element of the Plan will be implemented in the near future, using City funds and reallocation of existing Parks Department personnel. An additional opportunity for structured recreation is the supervised program for younger children (ages 6-16) at Shelby Park. The summer playground program offers organized recreation for 7 weeks in the Summer. The neighborhood association and neighborhood churches can announce this program if residents are not aware of it. 24. Alcohol and Drug Counsellinq Alcohol and drug abuse contribute to Smoketown's high crime-rate and unemployment problems. To help deal with these substance abuse problems, it is recommended that the Smoketown Community Development Association work with area churches to publicize the programs offered by the Jefferson Alcohol and Drug Abuse Center (JADAC). JADAC is operated by Seven Counties Services and is located one block north of Smoketown on Preston Street. Counselling programs of this type cannot be brought to individual neighborhoods; however, JADAC's location makes its programs very accessible to Smoketown residents. Programs which would be applicable to Smoketown include I the Childrens Alcohol Preventitive Program (to reduce the risk of i drug involvement for children of drug and alcohol users), group and i individual counselling, the Concerned Persons Program for relatives of addicted individuals, and educational programs designed to reduce alcoholism and addiction. It is recommended that the neighborhood association become informed on JADAC's programs and provide this information to the community. E. PRIORITIES The implementation section of the plan identified actions to implement the land-use recommendations for Smoketown. In this final section of the plan, the sequencing and relative importance of implementation measures is established. For each implementation action, the responsible agency and time frame for starting the action are indicated. The priority of implementation actions is also indicated. The priority of implementation measures was established by the Smoketown Task Force at a meeting on March 3, 1982. The same order of priorities had been developed by the Planning Commission staff during the planning process.. The implementation measures for land-use recommendations are summarized in Table 1-7. Recommended actions have been organized into three groups according to their relative priority. Highest priority actions are those measures that are most significant for implementation of the land-use plan. The priority rankings indicate the importance of the recommended action, rather than the time at which it should occur. The "startup time" entries indicate when steps should be taken to bring the implementation action "on line". Immediate actions should be undertaken as soon as possible to implement the recommended action after adoption of the neighborhood plan by the Board of Aldermen. Short-range actions should be undertaken between 6 months and 18 months after the Board's adoption of the plan. Measures to implement medium-range actions should be taken in the period between 18 months and 3 years from the time of plan adoption. Long-range implementation measures should be evaluated in light of conditions existing in Smoketown three years after plan adoption, to determine the need for these actions. TABLE 1-7 LAND USE IMPLEMENTATION

Implementation Measure Responsible Agency Startup Period-

1. Highest Priority Actions Gaining Community Community Development Short-range Development Block Cabinet, Board of Grant funds for Aldermen Smoketown Encouraging new resi- Smoketown Community Long-range dential construction Development Association (SCDA), City, non-profit housing corporation Measures to promote the U of L, SCDA, Dept. of Short-range neighborhood shopping Economic Development center Establish community SCDA, Parks Dept. Ongoing nursery to provide low- cost landscaping materials Acquire tax delinquent Law Dept. Urban Land Ongoing vacant lots, land bank Program until infill development occurs

2. High Priority Actions Zoning changes to pro- Board of Aldermen/ Short-range tect existing homes, Planning Commission allow commercial development (see Figure 2) Re-use vacant lots SCDA, Cooperative Immediate (yard space, gardens) Extension Create businessmen's SCDA association to promote full use of commercial and industrial areas Actions to promote SCDA, Building Immediate maintenance of vacant Inspection Dept. lots 3. Medium Priority Actions Resident involvement in SCDA, Metro Parks Short-range planning and maintaining Dept. parks Improvement of Ballard Metro Parks Dept., Medium-range and Lampton Parks City Screening and nuisance SCDA, Planning reduction Commission Preserve Structures at Landmarks Commission Ongoing Brook and Breckinridge

NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATION

1. Highest priority Actions Maintain office and CD Cabinet, County Immediate meeting place for neighborhood association, fund SCDA staff Organize a social event SCDA, LINC that draws on Smoke- town's historic and ethnic qualities (e.g. Oktoberfest, St. James Art Fair) Establish a street tree SCDA, Trees Inc., Short-range planting program Parks Dept. Develop the work exper- SCDA housing repair Short to ience aspect of neigh- and communitynursery Medium-range borhood improvement supervisors projects Seek volunteers from SCDA, Metro United Short-range Smoketown and the com- Way munity at large to assist these self-help efforts Broaden participation SCDA, Institute of Immediate in SCDA (churches, Cultural Affairs businesses, etc.) 2. Hiqh Priority Actions Establish Block Watches SCDA, Police Dept. Immediate throughout the neighborhood Expand organized recre- Parks Dept., Presby- Immediate ation programs terian Community Center

3. Medium Priority Actions Publicize Targeted Jobs DHR Manpower Services, Short-range Tax Credit program among SCDA, businessmen's neighborhood businesses association Provide information on SCDA, JADAC available drug and alcohol education and counselling programs I-- I-- I BROADWAY

-- Neighborhood Areas LPIUvUI. amd .Idlerno. CDM~ m.mdml Cmnvnl..loa -u BROADWAY

NEIGHBORHOOD Existing Land Use W.rut. amd J-. hn PI.mh, C.~WI. as of July, 1981 --u BROADWAY Existing Zoning Loui.vuc and Jefferr.. COluty mantdWc~~~~ as of August 20, 1981 SMOKETOWN-JACKSON 20- 20-0d NEIGHBORHOOD BROADWAY

1n11-, SMOKETOWN-JACKSON 2, zod W' I NElCHBORHOOD I- I 'Lu BROADWAY

Existing Condition of Structures La-. La-. udJUknod 4%- nmmn~n.CO~~. as of July, 1981

'IIIIU ir BROADWAY

haruI. .ma Jelkrm.n cam"~ Land Use Recommendations nullAlternative 3 il Saurce: Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission, Dec., 1981. I SMOKETOWN-JACKSON NEIGHBORHOOD IUUU BROADWAY

M..UI. ud Jdtenom amnn Recommended Zoning Changes PI-mhl c.mI..lon - -

I-2 I BROADWAY

SMOKETOWN-JACKSON NEIGHBORHOOD li. Transportation 11. Transportation The following section examines the transportation network serving Smoketown. The Needs Assessment phase first describes the inventory of transportation modes and facilities in the neighborhood (roadways, public transportation, truck and train traffic, walkways, bicycle routes, and parking facilities. An indepth analysis of the existing transportation system follows to determine its adequacy. Issues and problems are identified; government/non-government actions are examined to see how they have affected the overall transportation network. Based on the transportation characteristics identified and analyzed, a transportation plan can be developed to meet the needs of Smoketown. The second section, Projections, looks at what may happen in the future if no solutions or changes are applied to the existing transportation network. The third section, Alternatives and Recommendations, covers alternative solutions and gives recommendations for improving problem areas in the transportation network. The fourth section, Implementation, identifies ways and appropriate time frames for implementing the future Plan's recommendations. In addition, costs, funding sources, and implementation responsibilities are mentioned. The fifth and final section, Implementation Program, indicates the order of importance for implementing the recommendations which are discussed in the previous,section. A. NEEDS ASSESSMENT 1. Summary of Findings -- Smoketown is close to a number of major activity centers (employment, shopping, recreation, etc.). - - Interstate 65 is a dominant feature in Smoketown. It serves as a major link to metropolitan Louisville, the Commonwealth and Interstates 64, 71 and 264. Residents living close to the expressway are affected by highway noise and transportation- related air pollution. - - Northbound Jackson, Brook, Logan and Campbell Streets, and southbound Preston and Shelby Streets are classified as "minor arterials". Eastbound Kentucky and westbound Breckinridge Streets serve as "collector" roadways in the neighborhood. Broadway, the neighborhood's principal east-west street, is the only "major arterial" in Smoketown. The maximum speed limit on all of these streets is 35 miles per hour. -- Neighborhood streets which carry the greatest amount of traffic on a daily basis include: Broadway and portions of Brook and Breckinridge Streets. The intersection of Broadway and Brook handles the most traffic during the A.M. and P.M. rush hours, and had the most accidents (21) in Smoketown from January 1980 through January 1981. -- Smoketown has an extensive system of north-south and east-west alleys. Several of the alleys are overgrown with weeds, have drainage problems and poor pavement conditions. - - TARC provides Smoketown with five local bus routes and special elderly and handicapped transportation services. In addition, the "Wheels" program sponsored by the American Red Cross provides the elderly and handicapped with transportation services. -- Smoketown's businesses and industries are served by both rail and truck for freight distribution and delivery. Truck traffic in some areas (particularly the vicinity of Sheppard Square) creates noise levels not conducive to a residential environment. Trucks double-parked while making deliveries disrupt through traffic on some streets; this occurs when no off-street loading facilities are provided. -- Most of the neighborhood has sidewalks, both brick and concrete, in varying condition. Some areas with significant levels of pedestrian traffic need pedestrian facilities (crosswalks, walk-don't walk signals, handicapped ramps). - - In the central portion of Smoketown, officially designated and marked Class 111 bike routes are provided. Bicyclists using these routes share the road directly with motor vehicles.

2. Existing Conditions a. Roadways The roadway system in Smoketown generally follows a north-south, east-west grid pattern. The neighborhood is defined by significant transportation routes: Interstate 65 on the west, Broadway to the north, Kentucky Street to the south, and the L&N Railroad tracks on the east. This system of transportation routes provides vehicular access to adjoining neighborhoods, nearby industrial complexes, and I area-wide activity centers. The roadway network in Smoketown can be categorized according to each street's functional classification. This classification system identifies the functions and characteristics of a roadway, and its role within the transportation network. All streets in the neighborhood serve a vital function; the street system provides routes for local as well as through traffic. The street system in Smoke- town and its functional classification are shown in Figure 11-1. At the top of the classification hierarchy is the "expressway" system. Interstate 65 (the North-South Expressway) marks the western boundary of Smoketown. In a larger context, 1-65 provides a high level of accessibility to other portions of the metropolitan area, the State, and serves as a direct link between Chicago, Illinois, and Mobile, Alabama. Interstate 65 provides access to surrounding "major" and "minor" arterial streets. Speed limits range from a minimum of 45 to an enforced maximum of 55 miles per hour. Lane widths are approximately 12 feet to accommodate large sized vehicles. As a high volume, fast transportation link, through traffic is emphasized, and no direct access to adjacent land uses exists. Overall, the neighborhood has good access to and from Interstate 65, both northbound and southbound. In Smoketown there is an exit-ramp from northbound 1-65 onto Brook Street between Jacob and College Streets. There is an entrance ramp to southbound 1-65 located one block west of Smoketown on First Street, south of Jacob Street. South of Smoketown, north and south bound 1-65 exits onto St. Catherine Street, and an on-ramp to northbound 1-65 is located on St. Catherine Street just west of Floyd Street. In Smoketown, Broadway serves as a major east-west transportation corridor, and is the only street classified as a "major arterial". Major arterials link together major activity centers (downtown Louisville, employment and shopping centers, etc.) within the metropolitan area. Broadway provides a direct transportation route between the east and west sides of Louisville. Throughout the length of Broadway (including that portion in Smoketown) traffic lights are provided. During rush hours the green light phase increases to facilitate the flow of traffic. Broadway also serves as a link between Interstate 65 and several "minor arterials". Travel speeds range from 25 to 35 miles per hour. Traffic flows are generally slower during rush-hour periods (6:30 - 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 to 5:30 p.m.) due to commuter traffic. Several "minor arterials" in Smoketown serve inter-neighborhood travel needs and function as local transit routes. Minor arterials serve as a link between "major arterials" and "collector" streets, and generally emphasize through traffic flow. Brook, Preston, Jackson, Shelby, Logan and Campbell Streets are the "minor arterials" in Smoketown (see Figure 11-1). Northbound Preston and southbound Jackson Streets are part of the Kentucky Secondary Route System (Ky. 61), and serve as through traffic corridors for inter-neighborhood travel. These state maintained roads link Louisville's downtown and the medical complex with southern neighborhoods such as Shelby Park and Meriwether. Brook Street, located directly east of 1-65, is designed to serve as a one-way pair with First Street. Brook Street serves downtown Louisville as well as the Old Louisville and Phoenix Hill Neighbor- hoods. Southbound Shelby and northbound Logan Streets are also part of the State Secondary Road System (Ky. 864), and serve as through traffic corridors for inter-neighborhood travel. These state maintained roads link downtown Louisville and the Phoenix Hill neighborhood with Shelby Park, Meriwether, Germantown, and other neighborhoods farther south. It should be noted that Logan Street from Finzer to its termination at Broadway is not classified as a "minor arterial". Instead, Campbell Street and the portion of Finzer Street east of Logan serve as the eastern-most "minor arterial". Currently, Kentucky and Breckinridge Streets serve as "collector" roadways in the Smoketown neighborhood. These roadways collect traffic from local streets and disperse it into the arterial roadways. Collectors provide intra-neighborhood movement (i.e. movement within Smoketown) and generally act as the main interior streets of a particular neighborhood. Collector streets serve as a link between "minor arterials" and "local" streets, and also provide access to abutting land uses. Eastbound Kentucky and westbound Breckinridge Street are a one-way pair between Baxter Avenue and Ninth Street. Traffic signals are provided along portions of both roadways. Green light time does not increase during peak commuting periods. The remaining streets within Smoketown are classified as "local" streets. Local streets are primarily used for property access and for access to the "collector' roadway network. Traffic typically travels two-way with parking permitted on both sides of the road. On Figure 11-1, streets which are not labeled are classified as "local" streets. All streets classified as "arterial" and "collector" streets are designated under Louisville's traffic ordinance as "major through roadways". This ordinance gives the Department of Traffic Engineer- ing the authority to post speed limits up to 35 miles per hour. Clay Street, technically classified as a ''local" roadway, is also listed under the traffic ordinance as a "major through street". Further discussion of Clay Street follows in the analysis section. An extensive system of north-south and east-west alleys exist in Smoketown. Nearly every residence is served by an alley. Many of the alleys in the neighborhood have been black-topped, although several brick alleys still exist. Some alleys (particularly those located between Lampton and Kentucky Streets from Preston to Shelby Streets) are the sole vehicular access to and from properties, particularly residential properties. b. Traffic Volumes Average daily traffic (ADT) is the volume or amount of traffic passing through a designated point on an average day. Generally, "expressway" and "arterial" roadways carry more traffic than "collector" or "local" streets. Consequently, ADT's along some roadways in Smoketown are higher than on others, as indicated on Figure 11-2 and in Appendix F, Table 1. Other than Interstate 65, which handles over 90,000 vehicles per day, the highest traffic volumes in Smoketown can be found on Broadway and on portions of Brook and Breckinridge Streets. Broad- way carries over 22,000 vehicles per day, and traffic on Brook (north and south of Broadway) ranges from 17,000 to over 18,000 vehicles daily. The area of Breckinridge Street just east of Brook Street has a traffic count of over 10,800 vehicles per day. Broadway, Brook and Breckinridge Streets carry through traffic in addition to local traffic. Through traffic is traffic without an origin or destination within the neighborhood. Consequently, traffic volumes are generally higher on the weekdays due to commuter traffic. Much of the traffic on Broadway (specifically that portion serving Smoketown) results from commuter traffic traveling to and from downtown Louisville. In addition, land uses along Broadway attract local as well as commuter traffic. Broadway also provides access to the neighborhood's "minor arterials". These minor arterials pass through several inner-city neighborhoods and serve a number of businesses, industries and public-oriented facilities. Finally, Broadway's proximity to Interstate 65 is another reason why it is used so frequently. Heavy traffic volumes on portions of Brook and Breckinridge Streets appear to result from the direct link both roads provide to downtown Louisville. Brook and Breckinridge also provide indirect access to Interstate 65. c. Public Transportation Neighborhood public transportation needs are served by TARC (Transit Authority of River City). Presently, TARC provides Smoketown with bus service through five different lines: (21) Chestnut Street, (23) Broadway, (11) Portland-Shelby, (43) Poplar Level Road, and (19) Preston-18th Street. Presently, the Broadway route (23) is the only accessible (wheelchair lift equipped) line available in Smoketown. Kneeling buses, however, are available on routes serving the neighborhood as well as other areas in the City and County. Coaches with the "kneeling" feature are placed on routes on a random basis. Kneeling buses are equipped with an air device used to lower the entrance steps, making the coach more accessible to the elderly and handicapped who can walk. All five lines are designated as local routes. Coaches operating on local routes will stop at any point along its designated run whenever a passenger requests. In a larger context, each line operating through Smoketown provides transit service from an outlying area to downtown Louisville. TARC routes servicing Smoketown travel on Broadway, Preston, Jack- son, Shelby, Logan, portions of Finzer, and Campbell Streets. The neighborhood is provided with transit service in a11 directions to all major points of the City. There are no bus shelters located within the interior of Smoketown; there are, however, shelters along Broadway. Figure 11-3 shows transit routes and bus shelters in Smoketown. Regular bus transportation service is available seven days a week. However, transit service on Saturdays and Sundays is not as extensive as on the weekdays. The waiting time between coaches is generally less during the weekday rush-hour periods. Service frequencies (the amount of time between successive coaches), and hours of operation for each route are explained in Appendix G "Transit Service". An additional public transportation service available in Smoketown is TARC's special elderly and handicapped service, TARCLIFT. This special service is broken down into two categories: regular subscription and advance call-in. The regular subscription service is geared to those who work or attend school. It operates Monday through Friday from 6:30 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. The person who uses this service arranges a regular pickup and delivery schedule with TARC for at least three days a week. unlike the subscription service, the advance call-in service operates on a demand-response basis. Coaches operate from 9:00 A.M. to 10:OO P.M. on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. on Tuesday and Thursday. There is also weekend service from 11:OO A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on Saturday, and 7:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. on Sundays. For those needing this type of service, TARC takes reservations for transportation services for the following week. In order to obtain weekend service, reservations must be made the preceding Friday by 4:00 P.M. Generally, trip purposes for medical/rehabilitation activities take first priority. Other trip purposes such as shopping or recreation are fulfilled after the priority trips are first served. In addition to TARC's special handicapped service is the WHEELS program sponsored by the American Red Cross. The WHEELS program will provide transportation services for the elderly and handicapped in Smoketown. Individuals are requested to schedule needed services at least five days in advance. Basically, the program consists of several vehicles that pick up passengers at different locations and transport them to nutrition, medical and social centers. Although there are some set routes, schedule times and routes are generally determined by the amount of people traveling to each location on a particular day. The WHEELS program operates five days a week from 8:30 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. d. Goods Movement Goods movement deals with the transportation of things (e.g., freight materials) rather than the movement of people. In Smoketown, trucks and nearby rail facilities provide goods movement services. Trucks: In urban areas, trucking is the predominant means of providing "goods movement" services. Approximately 60% of trucking movement in urban areas involves pick-ups, service calls, and other uses, while the remaining 40% of trucking movement is for delivery purposes. Trucking activity appears to peak during the hours of 9:00 A.M. through 11:OO A.M. - usually after the morning commuting rush. Significant afternoon activity diminishes around 4:00 P.M. - before the evening rush-hour. Generally, trucking is more active during the weekdays. Truck traffic appears to be significant on some streets in Smoke- town. Appendix H "Truck Traffic Volumes" indicates the actual truck traffic on several streets in the neighborhood. The figures indicate that nearly 8% of all vehicles were trucks at the intersection of Jackson Street and Lampton Street, the highest percentage of trucks in the neighborhood. The average concentration of trucks in urban areas is 5.4% of traffic on "minor arterials", 2.7% on "collectors", and 1.8% on "local" streets. Other intersections having significant truck traffic volumes are Hancock at Lampton, Preston at Kentucky, and Hancock at Kentucky. Rail: The Louisville and Nashville (L&N) Railroad tracks are -situated along the eastern boundary of Smoketown. The tracks cross Kentucky Street at-grade, and are elevated above Breckinridge Street and Broadway. Rail activity is significant at the Kentucky Street crossing, approximately 28 trains per day according to the Kentucky Department of Transportation. A spur from the main tracks crosses Breckinridge Street at-grade; this crossing receives minimal use, one train per day. The railroad crossings at Kentucky and Breckinridge Streets are equipped with pavement markings and active warning devices (flashing lights and automatic gates) to caution approaching vehicles and pedestrians of on-coming trains. According to the Department of Transportation, train speeds at the Kentucky -Street location ranges from 10 to 20 miles per hour, and from 2 to 5 miles per hour at Breckinridge Street. Generally, the length of time the at-grade railroad crossings are blocked by train traffic ranges from five to eight minutes per train. With an average of 28 trains passing through the Ken- tucky Street crossing, this particular location is blocked approximately 2 to 3+ hours during an average day. Train activity here can cause periodic traffic delays and inconvenience for motorists. At the Breckinridge Street location, there is an above-grade crossing in addition to the at-grade crossing. The at-grade tracks serve an adjacent manufacturing business, while through train movement uses the above-grade tracks. Above-grade tracks allow trains to travel above a road on an elevated passageway. Above-grade crossings are essential on roads with high vehicular volumes such as Broadway. With above-grade tracks, emergency vehicles as well as other motor vehicles, and pedestrians are not interrupted by through train movement. All traffic on Broadway travels underneath the L&N tracks just east of Campbell Street.

8. Sidewalks and Pedestrian Facilities To insure safe pedestrian access to and from activity centers (schools, churches, stores, etc.), sidewalks and street crossing aids should be provided. In Smoketown, pedestrian traffic is heaviest along Broadway and portions of Jacob, Lampton, Finzer, Breckinridge, Caldwell, Brook, Floyd, Preston, Jackson, Hancock, Clay and Shelby Streets. Refer to Figure 11-4 for the location of areas with significant levels of pedestrian traffic. This graphic also illustrates the location of crosswalks, traffic lights, pedestrian signals, and low sidewalks or sidewalk ramps. Most streets in the neighborhood have sidewalks. Concrete sidewalks are generally found along Broadway, Kentucky Street, Breckinridge Street, and along all of the "minor arterials". Brick sidewalks can be found along portions of Caldwell, Lampton, Mason and Finzer Streets. Within the boundaries of Smoketown, eight intersections have sidewalk ramps, five of which are on Broadway. Of the 23 signalized intersections in the neighborhood, eight are equipped with a pedestrian signals. Painted crosswalk lines are present at various intersections throughout the neighborhood. f. Bikeway Facilities Smoketown is served by officially designated Class I11 bicycle routes. Bicycles using these routes share the road directly with motor vehicles. Class I11 facilities in the neighborhood are identified by green and white signs displaying a bicycle with the words "Bike Route" written underneath. Streets are selected to serve as Class I11 bikeways if they have sufficient roadway widths, low-traffic volumes and speed-limits, and street continuity.

Bicycle routes passing through Smoketown are part of a larger bikeway system serving most of the City. The bikeway system (including the portion through Smoketown) was established in 1977 with the adoption of a bikeway plan by the Kentuckiana Regional Planning and Development Agency (KIPDA). Figure 11-4 shows bike routes in Smoketown. g. Parking Facilities Parking facilities (both on-street and off-street) are an important element of Smoketown's transportation system. Adequate off-street parking generally ensures that the flow of traffic is not interrupted by vehicles entering and exiting on-street spaces. Vehicles must have a storage place (i.e. parking space) at both the origin and destination of any trip. In Smoketown, there is significant amount of on-street parking. On-street parking is important to Smoketown because most of the residential arid commercial structures were constructed prior to the time when the provision of off-street parking spaces became mandatory. In many areas of Smoketown, residences and shops depend entirely on on-street parking. Off-street parking facilities in Smoketown serve many of the area's institutional, commercial, and office uses. The majority of the off-street spaces are located from Broadway south to Caldwell between Preston and Brook Streets, and between Clay Street and the L&N Railroad tracks. Currently, one pay-parking lot exists in the neighborhood located between Broadway and Jacob Street directly west of Floyd Street. Figure 1-2 in the land use section indicates areas within the neighborhood having off-street parking space. To get an idea of the number of off-street spaces needed per establishment, refer to Appendix J "Off-Street Parking Requirements", from the ~etropolitanZoning District Regulations. These requirements apply to all new or extensively expanded buildings and uses. h. Heliport The vacant lot bounded by Preston, Jackson, Finzer and Jacob is currently used as a temporary heliport (an unofficially designated airport for helicopters). The heliport serves the various medical facilities in the area. Generally, the helicopter service is used to transport patients or needed medical supplies from one medical facility to another. Upon completion of the new facilities for University Hospital, helicopters will cease landing at this site.

3. Analysis of Existing Conditions a. Roadways The street system in Smoketown appears to be satisfactory in handling the existing levels of traffic on a daily basis. Neighborhood streets listed below experience periods of heavy traffic during peak commuting hours: -Broadway (particularly at Brook, Floyd, and Shelby Streets). -Breckinridge Street east of Brook Street. -The intersection of Kentucky and Preston Streets. -Brook Street at Broadway and between College and Jacob Streets. These temporary periods of heavy traffic are not serious enough to justify roadway widening or other major facility improvements to facilitate rush-hour traffic flow. Overall, the flow of commuter traffic is relatively smooth with some intersectional delays and conflicts. Level of Service. The level of service is a measure of how well a roadway functions. It is based on collective transportation factors such as travel speed, freedom to maneuver, driving comfort, traffic interruptions, safety, and convenience of the roadway during peak traveling hours under a certain volume condition. The level of service can also be affected by factors other than peak periods of heavy vehicular flow such as: right and left turning movements, intersection alignment, presence of pedestrians, weather conditions, obstructions in the vicinity of the roadway, and truck and bus traffic. Level of Service (LOS) designations range from "A" to "F". LOS "A" implies free flowing traffic conditions. LOS "A" and "B" indicate generally good roadway conditions on arterials, with the capacity to handle additional vehicles. Streets with a LOS "C" experience acceptable delays at the intersection. LOS "D" approaches unstable flow although delays at the intersection are tolerable. LOS "E" describes substantial congestion with traffic approaching stop and go. LOS "F" indicates traffic is continuously backed up or jammed. Figure 11-5 shows level of service ratings for intersections in Smoketown. Based on data presented in Table 11-1, "Level of Service", nine of the eleven intersections were calculated as having an LOS rating "A" at all times. The intersection of Brook and Breckinridge Streets has an LOS rating "B" during the morning rush-hour; still a relatively good service rating for the intersection. The intersection of Brook and Broadway is the intersection in the neighborhood with a level of service below the "B" range. However, traffic flow problems at this intersection are "acceptable", and are limited to the morning rush hour. (The intersection of Broadway and Brook Street has an LOS rating "C" during the morning rush-hour, and a "B" rating during the evening rush-hour.) 900, 1,050 and 1,200 vehicles per hour of green mark the upper traffic volume thresholds for the A, B, and C categories, (respectively). Off-peak hour traffic encounters occasional delays on some streets due to vehicles entering and exiting on-street parking spaces, and trucks loading and unloading goods. Kentucky Street east of Logan Street experiences periodic delays due to train traffic. The degree of congestion and inconvenience for motorists at this particular location depends on the length of time it takes the train to pass. The Kentucky Department of Transportation has indicated the crossing is blocked approximately 28 times a day from five to eight minutes each time. Since this segment of Kentucky Street receives relatively low traffic volumes, periodic congestion caused by through train movement is not serious. Traffic Safety. A discrepancy exists regarding the classification of Clay Street. Clay Street currently functions as a "local" street (see Figure 11-11. As a "local" street, the maximum speed limit on Clay Street should be 25 miles per hour. However, Louisville's Traffic Code lists Clay Street as a "major through street", and the ordinance gives Traffic Engineering the right to post speeds of up to 35 miles per hour. Currently, no speed limit signs are posted along Clay Street. TABLE 11-1 LEVEL OF SERVICE INTERSECTION COUNT DATE A.M. PEAK HOUR A.M. LEVEL P.M. PEAK HOUR P.M. LEVEL CRITICAL VOLUME OF SERVICE CRITICAL VOLUME OF SERVICE Brook Street at Breckinridge Street 3/5/75 1002 B 531 Kentucky Street at Preston Street 3/12/81 240

Broadway at Shelby Street 7/2/80 712 A 751 A

Broadway at Floyd Street 3/30/81 550 A 531 A

Broadway at Clay Street 7/7/80 440 A 612 A

Broadway at Jackson Street 7/9/80 534 H H I Kentucky Street at Hancock !4 Street 11/3/77 177 P Lampton Street at Hancock Street 3/27/79 Lampton Street at Jackson Street

Broadway at Hancock Street 7/8/80 470 A 665 A

Broadway at Brook Street 6/10/76 1069 C 1000 B

Source: Planning Commission - August 1981 City Traffic Engineering (Vehicle Volume Counts 1975-1981) . According to neighborhood sources, vehicles drive through Clay \ : Street at high speeds. I] : Motorists traveling too fast on Clay Street have caused conflicts between pedestrians and motor vehicles, particularly in the area !', 1, between Lampton and Jacob Streets in the vicinity of Sheppard i ~-~]: Square. This area contains many residents; many of whom are young ~, 8 : '~1, : children. Regardless of age, high travel speeds are dangerous to : , pedestrians in densely populated areas. In addition to high travel speeds, there are problems with Clay Street's traffic control . , devices. According to neighborhood sources, traffic often disre- gards the stop signs, particularly at the Clay and Lampton Street

intersection. This problem results from vehicles, particularly ~ ~ trucks, double parking near the intersection and blocking the view of the stop signs. Pavement Conditions. Pavement conditions on roads throughout the neighborhood vary. On state-maintained roads, pavement conditions range from fair to good. Currently, Preston, Logan, and Campbell Streets are in fair condition. These three roads were last paved in 1973. Jackson and Shelby Streets are in good condition; both streets were repaved in 1980. According to the Department of Transportation, State-maintained roads are repaved every 10 years, or whenever the need arises. Streets maintained by the City are in relatively good condition. Hancock Street (from Breckinridge to Kentucky) and Floyd Street (from Broadway to Breckinridge) were repaved during the fall of 1981; these roads are in excellent condition. Several of the alleys in the residential area of Smoketown, from Preston to Shelby between Finzer and Kentucky Streets, are in need of repair. Problems associated with these alleys include poor surface conditions, inadequate drainage, high grass, weeds, overgrown vegetation and trash. Accidents. Within the boundaries of Smoketown, six intersections have been identified as being frequent accident locations (see Figure 11-5). The City Police Department compiled information on the number of accidents occurring at various locations from January 1980 through January 1981. The data on accidents are presented in Table 11-2. The majority of the accidents were caused by motorists either disregarding the traffic control device or failing to yield the right-of-way. Other significant causes included improper vehicular turning movements and motorists following too close. The vicinity of the Broadway exit on Interstate 65 also appears to be a trouble spot based on past accident studies. This particular location on the Interstate system was analyzed in a 1978 and 1979 KIPDA accident study, and was ranked tenth on the list of the ten highest accident locations on Interstates in metropolitan Louis- ville. For both years, 66 accidents were reported. TABLE 11-2 HIGH ACCIDENT LOCATIONS

Location Number Accidents City-wide Rank

Brook &

Broadway 2 1 13

Preston & Broadway

Jackson &

Broadway

Jackson & Breckinridge

Floyd &

Broadway

Campbell &

Broadway

Source: Louisville Division of Police, 1981. 1 i From this analysis, it is evident that Broadway has the most frequent accidents in the neighborhood. Broadway handles significant levels of traffic, over 22,000 vehicles daily. Further, a constant mix of vehicles (car, bus, truck) conflicts with pedestrians. These 11 ~I factors make a very busy street where accidents are more likely. I rn I b. Public Transportation 1 1 ' I I Existing bus transportation coverage in Smoketown appears to be I adequate. However, residences located between Clay and Hancock Streets and on the southern portion of Brook Street are not as close to public transportation facilities as other homes the neighborhood. Currently, no residence in Smoketown is located farther than four- tenths of a mile from a bus line. According to TARC, an acceptable walking distance to a bus stop is three to four blocks (approximately % of a mile), although a one to two-block walking distance is more desirable. These standards generally apply to able-bodied people. Although TARC's standards are not met in some parts of the neighborhood, the population in Smoketown is too small to lustify an expansion of service. The five routes available to Smoketown link the neighborhood to all parts of the City. Generally, inner-city neighborhoods such as Smoketown have the best transit service, being located at the confluence of many routes. Of all the routes available in Smoketown, the Broadway line (23) offers the best service (in terms of frequency) during the weekdays. Likewise, the Chestnut Street line (21) offers the best service throughout the weekend. The Broadway line (23) and Prestonll8th Street (18) line, consecu- tively, served the most passengers based on information provided in Appendix K "Ridership - 1979". These statistics indicate that the Broadway line averaged over 61,000 passengers per week and the Prestonll8th Street line served approximately 22,000 passengers per week. This table also indicates that the Broadway line captured 17% of TARC's weekly patronage and that the Preston/l8th Street line totaled 9%. All routes serving Smoketown captured 39% of TARC's weekly patronage. , .. ! : Based on statistics presented in Appendix L, the Broadway and Preston/l8th Street lines serve more passengers per trip than other I lines serving Smoketown. During peak and lunch hour periods, some I , ,, I overcrowding on these routes can occur. 1.; ! At times, potential transit users can be discouraged from using bus service due to problems with accessibility, safety, and comfort for the transit passenger. Generally, reasons for not using public transportation are individual in scope. Apparent problems in Smoketown include: --Deteriorated and littered sidewalks, particularly along portions of Broadway, Preston, Jackson, Shelby and Logan Streets. --Heavily traveled roadways creating pedestrian crossing hazards at the following locations: --Brook Street north and south of Broadway and --All of Broadway --Lack of curb cuts (sidewalk ramps) on portions of Preston and Jackson Streets, and all of Shelby and Logan Streets. --No bus shelters in the interior of Smoketown such that transit users are exposed to harsh weather conditions. Prior to the expansion of TARCLIFT (TARC's special elderly and handicapped bus transportation), the demand for this service far exceeded the available supply. According to TARC sources, the waiting list for the special service had included about 118 people. Some individuals had been known to wait up to one year for TARC's door-to-door service. Hence, the infirm who were unable to use regular TARC service had much difficulty in arranging transportation service for medical appointments, shopping trips, etc. At present, it appears that the overall picture of inadequate special transportation services has changed as of November 1981. TARC's expansion of both vehicles and hours of service has reduced the waiting list more than 70 percent. Presently, the American Red Cross WHEELS program does not fare as well as TARCLIFT in terms of service. Since the WHEELS program has been affected by budget cuts which reduce the length and number of trips that can be accommodated, service appears to be less than adequate. c. Goods Movement Trucks. Currently trucks travel on all roadways within the boundaries of Smoketown. Technically there is a prohibition of through trucks on Brook Street (from Jacob to Shipp Street) that weigh more than 21,000 pounds, but this is not enforced. Ideally, trucks should use "arterial" streets for through movement; "collector" and "local" streets should only be traveled to gain access to loading/unloading points. According to this theory, if trucks only used arterials for through travel purposes, many of the safety, noise, vibration and air pollution problems created from these larger size vehicles would be eliminated within residential areas. This ideal system has not been realized in Smoketown. Arterial streets pass through residential areas; collector and local streets provide direct access to industrial development; and local streets provide convenient routes to other portions of the City. Rail. Approximately 7,000 to 8,000 vehicles per day on Breckinridge and Kentucky Streets cross the railroad tracks located east of Logan Street. Prior to both railroad crossings, pavement markings warn motorists of a railroad crossing ahead. However, no advance warning signs are provided at either location. Rail accidents occurring along railroad corridors throughout Jefferson County have decreased significantly since 1976 according I to Department of Transportation sources. The number of accidents I occurring in the Smoketown vicinity has decreased. From 1976 to

1978, one rail accident was reported each year. From 1979 to 1980, 11 none were reported. 1 I d. Sidewalks and Pedestrian Safety Facilities The condition of sidewalks (both brick and concrete) varies throughout the neighborhood. Portions of sidewalks have cracked and - buckled due to seasonal temperature changes. Trash is apparent on almost every sidewalk, particularly along concentrated commercial corridors (Floyd, Preston, Broadway and portions of Logan and Brook Streets). Weeds and a general lack of sidewalk maintenance by some property owners appears to be a big problem according to neighborhood sources. Pedestrian safety facilities such as crosswalk lines are deteriorated or lacking in many areas in Smoketown. Finally, there is a severe lack of handicapped ramps (accessible sidewalks) throughout the entire neighborhood. Listed below is an overview of sidewalks and crosswalks deserving attention: - Floyd and Brook Street Area: Generally, sidewalks along both streets are in fair to good condition. The intersection of Brook and Caldwell Streets, and Floyd and Caldwell Streets lack crosswalk pavement markings. These two intersections are in the vicinity of Male High School; significant pedestrian traffic exists in these locations. - Preston and Jackson Street Area: Sidewalks along both streets are in fair condition. Sidewalk trash is apparent along the northern portion of both streets at Lampton Street (near the site of Meyzeek Middle School and Sheppard Square). Both streets have significant concentrations of pedestrians, especially young children. This general area appears to be potentially hazardous for pedestrians of all ages. On Preston Street, crosswalks are deteriorated, particularly at Lampton and Jacob Streets. Painted pedestrian crosswalks are lacking on Jackson Street, particularly in the vicinity of Sheppard Square (between and including Jacob and Lampton). Mid-block crossing occurs

between Jacob and Lampton Street, and according to neighborhood I'I I sources, this area is hazardous for children. Currently, no

pedestrian safety facilities are present in this location. , ~,. Painted crosswalks are lacking at the intersection of Jackson ',, I and Caldwell even though there is significant pedestrian I movement. - Hancock and Clay Street Area: Sidewalks in this area are in fair condition. In the Sheppard Square vicinity no crosswalks are marked on Hancock and Clay Streets at Jacob Street. Although there are painted crosswalks on Hancock and Clay Street at Lampton Street, cars and trucks pose a threat to pedestrians; frequently, vehicles do not yield to pedestrians because the stop sign is not clearly visible. Mid-block crossing occurs between Jacob and Lampton Streets on Hancock Street. This is hazardous as there are no mid-block pedestrian facilities on Hancock Street. - Sheppard Square: Problems exist throughout the sidewalk system due to a lack of maintenance (trash, weeds, etc.). In addition, drainage is inadequate, making portions of the walkway system impassible in wet weather. e. Bikeway Facilities Bike routes in Smoketown appear to be satisfactory at the present time. Neighborhood routes link up with other bikeways throughout Louisville, making a number of neighborhood and activity centers accessible by bicycle. Presently, no direct linkages from Smoketown are provided to the east and west ends of Louisville. There are extensions, however, to east and west Louisville from bicycle routes located off of southbound Floyd and Hancock Streets in the Shelby Park neighborhood. From south Floyd Street and Ormsby Avenue, routes extending westbound link up with activity centers and neighborhoods in the vicinity of Shawnee Park. From southbound Hancock and east Oak Street, routes extending east link up with areas near Cave Hill Cemetery, Cherokee Park and pass around portions of the Bardstown Road commercial corridor. Currently, direct connection to the south end of Louisville is provided by the Floyd Street bicycle route. The southbound Floyd Street route links up with neighborhoods and activity centers in the vicinity of Churchill Downs and Iroquois Park. In addition, northbound routes from Floyd and Hancock Streets provide connections to downtown Louisville and the riverfront. Aside from satisfactory linkages with other bike routes in Louis- ville, most design features are adequate at the present time. These standards include signing, drainage grates, and illumination. Signs: All signs are properly mounted for visibility informing the bicyclist of continued or changes in the direction of existing routes. Drainage grates: Drainage grates will not entrap bike tires. Illumination: Smoketown's bicycle facilities are adequately lighted. In the Louisville area, bicyclists are legally allowed to use any streets or highways (except freeways) for bicycle transportation. Accordingly, if bicyclists in Smoketown use existing roadways instead of officially designated routes, they should be cautious of roadways with high travel speeds (35 miles per hour or more) and heavy vehicular volumes. However, it should be noted that any corridor used for multi-modal transportation purposes (truck, auto, bus, bike) is never completely safe from potential hazards. f. Parking The availability of parking varies within the neighborhood. In general, there appears to be adequate parking for most uses in Smoketown. On-street parking provides many of the neighborhood's parking spaces because the area was developed prior to enactment of ordinances that require provision of off-street parking. The larger commercial and industrial uses in the neighborhood in some instances have provided parking at the expense of housing in the neighborhood core. (This issue is addressed in the land use section of the plan.) An analysis of the Logan Street corridor indicated that the existing combination of on-street and off-street parking spaces was adequate to meet the estimated parking demand of existing land uses along the corridor. The response to the business survey indicated some Smoketown businesses need more off-street parking (18% of respondents); some businesses need additional loading area (11% of the respondents) .

, Parking deficiencies in Smoketown appear to stem from competition between commercial and residential uses. Neighborhood residents indicate that bars create parking problems for nearby houses. A shortage of parking spaces may also exist in the vicinity of Shep- pard Square, where residential density is higher than elsewhere in Smoketown, and little off-street parking is provided. Short-term parking by delivery trucks at the intersections of Clay and Lampton, and Hancock and Lampton creates traffic-flow problems. The lack of a delivery zone and parking restrictions result in trucks double parking along Lampton Street. This obstructs traffic and endangers pedestrians crossing the street in these areas. 4. Issues and Problems Based on the inventory and analysis of Smoketown's transportation network, and the neighborhood's perception of transportation problems, the following issues should be addressed in the neighborhood plan. a. Roadways Vehicles run stop signs at the intersections of Clay and Lampton Streets, Hancock and Lampton Streets, and Hancock and Jacob Streets due to poor visibility of the signs. This appears to be the result of delivery trucks double-parking in front of stores and blocking a clear view of the stop signs. The lack of off-street loading facilities near these businesses contributes to the problems. Ultimately, pedestrians and vehicles are both endangered by these traffic problems. The intersection of Brook and Broadway has a high number of accidents (21 in 1980). Frequent accidents also occurred at the intersection of: Broadway and Preston Street (12) Broadway and Jackson Street (11) Breckinridge Street and Jackson Street (11) Broadway and Floyd Street (10) Broadway and Campbell Street (10)

Traffic speeds on Clay Street are excessive. There are no I speed limit signs, and the street is listed in the City's Traffic Ordinance as a major through street (35 m.p.h. limit is generally authorized on major through streets). Traffic also moves fast on Hancock, Lampton and Jacob Streets. Traffic on these streets passes Meyzeek Middle School and penetrates the Sheppard Square Housing Project. b. Public Transportation There is a lack of bus shelters in the interior of Smoketown and along the south side of Broadway. The bus stop at Jackson and Broadway is poorly located in relation to curb cuts for adjacent land uses. I c. Goods Movement Deteriorated railroad tracks and poor visibility at the Kentucky and Breckinridge Street railroad crossings. d. Sidewalks and Pedestrian Facilities In several parts of the neighborhood, sidewalks are deteriorated, overgrown with weeds, and littered by trash. Bad sidewalk conditions exist in Sheppard Square, and water remains on these sidewalks long after it rains. Pedestrian facilities (such as pedestrian walk signals, painted crosswalks and accessible sidewalks) are-needed in several areas of the neighborhood where pedestrian traffic is significant. Only eight areas have handicapped ramps (accessible sidewalks), and these are concentrated along Broadway. e. Parking Parking spaces reserved for handicapped individuals are needed. 5. Government and Non-Government Actions Transportation issues and problems identified thus far are the result of actions taken by government agencies and the private sector. In some cases, inaction on the part of an agency has had an equally significant impact on the neighborhood's transportation system. a. Roadways and Parking The maintenance and improvement of Smoketown's existing roadway system is a function of all levels of government. Federal, state and local governments determine problem areas, identify funding sources and provide expertise in accomplishing various projects. The Kentucky Department of Transportation (KDOT) maintains pavement surfaces and provides signing on the state-maintained routes (Preston-Jackson, Shelby-Logan-Campbell). KDOT also maintains Interstate 65 and its interchanges. In addition, KDOT administers federal monies (i.e., Urban System, Primary System, Interstate System, Rail-Highway Grade Crossing, and Safer Off-System Road) for local improvements often initiated by local government agencies. State and/or city government must match federal monies on most road improvements. The highway project which most affected the character of Smoketown was the construction of Interstate 65. This action closed Preston Street farther south in the Shelby Park neighborhood. Accordingly, Interstate 65 significantly lowered traffic volumes in the Preston Street corridor (KY 61). At the same time, however, traffic increased on some east-west streets providing access to the expressway from nearby neighborhoods. From 1979 to November of 1981, 1-65 underwent major repair and renovation. This action caused a temporary disruption of traffic patterns in the neighborhood due to temporary ramp closings and the banning of trucks on the expressway. A temporary bridge was built over the L&N Railroad tracks to recon- nect Preston Street in order to reduce congestion on local streets during the reconstruction of Interstate 65. There have been no recent improvements to Preston (KY 61) or Logan and Campbell Streets (KY 864). These roads were last resurfaced in 1973. Jackson (KY 61) and Shelby (KY 864) Streets were improved during 1980. State-maintained roads are resurfaced as needed, approximately every seven to ten years. Except for portions of Hancock and Floyd Streets, there have been no recent improvements in City-maintained streets.. Facilitating traffic flow to and through Smoketown is the responsibility of Louisville's Department of Traffic Engineering. Identi- fication of intersection inadequacies or traffic signalization problems are examples of functions performed by this Department. The Department also regulates on-street parking in Smoketown. This action takes the form of "no parking zones", "no parking due to street cleaning", and restricted parking hours. The City has established many of these restrictions to prevent traffic hazards, facilitate the flow of traffic, or provide space for bus stops and reserved handicapped parking. Traffic Engineering uses local tax revenues and State aid (Municipal Aid Program fund) to finance local transportation projects. Louisville's Public Works Department is responsible for improvement and maintenance of City streets not maintained by the Kentucky Department of Transportation. Some of the activities of the Works Department include street resurfacing, widening, cleaning, and the removal of snow or ice. In addition, the Departments also provides engineering services for physical improvement projects (new sidewalks, handicapped ramps, etc.) funded by federal Community Develop- ment funds. Other local improvements receive monies primarily from the State Aid (Municipal Aid Program) fund. The Public Works Department has scheduled improvement of the railroad crossing at Kentucky Street east of Logan Street. This crossing will be improved with the installation of rubberized track- crossing facilities. Currently, the Public Works Department is installing handicapped ramps along TARC's accessible routes. In Smoketown, the only accessible route is the Broadway line. Construction of the handicapped ramps should near completion by the Summer of 1982. Off-street parking is regulated through zoning regulations and enforced by the Zoning Enforcement Section of the City Building Inspection Department. These regulations only apply to new construction and new uses or to the expansion of existing structures or uses by 50 percent or more. Because most of Smoketown was developed prior to these regulations, they can do little to resolve the existing parking problem and can only prevent the problem from getting worse. b. Public Transportation Public transportation in Smoketown is provided primarily by the Transit Authority of River City (TARC). This transit service depends heavily on Federal funds of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) under Sections 3 and 5 of the Surface Trans- portation Act of 1978 to subsidize operating costs and capital expenditures. TARC services are also subsidized by the Local Mass Transit Fund derived from the 0.2 percent occupational tax paid 'by persons employed in Jefferson County. Subsidy of public transit for the elderly and handicapped has been provided primarily by UMTA Section 16 (b) (2) funds which can be used to finance 50% of the operating and 80% of the capital expenditures. The primary source of funding for the WHEELS Program is the United Way campaign through the portion allocated to the American Red Cross. Some special federal funds (UMTA Section 13 B (2)) are available to transportation providers to the elderly and are a possible source of funding for the WHEELS program. The WHEELS program is also investigating the possibility of using UMTA Section 18 funds, which are available to transportation providers who serve rural communities. c. Goods Movement Truck traffic flows through Smoketown virtually unrestricted. An obscure 1960 ordinance restricts truck traffic on some streets in Louisville, particularly vehicles with extremely heavy loads or those which carry dangerous materials (flammable, corrosive, etc.). These restrictions apply to Brook Street and other streets within the downtown area, but are not actively enforced. d. Pedestrian Facilities Facilities for pedestrians are primarily the responsibility of the Department of Traffic Engineering. The Department determines the need for pedestrian walk signals. It also reviews proposed transit shelters and requires wheel-chair ramps as part of any project necessitating sidewalk reconstruction. Maintenance of sidewalks is the responsibility of adjoining property owners. The Housing Authority of Louisville is responsible for maintaining sidewalks in Sheppard Square. e. Bikeways Bikeways are also a local government concern. The Kentuckiana Regional Planning and Development Agency (KIPDA) has been responsible for determining the need for bikeways in the area. The needs and recommendations for bikeways as determined by KIPDA are presented in the 1977 KIPDA Bikeway Plan. Funding for construction, maintenance and regulation has come in the past from all three levels of government: local, state and fedefal. Funding for bikeways is currently not available, and this has curtailed expansion of the bikeway system in Louisville and Southern Indiana. B. PROJECTIONS The transportation system serving Smoketown consists of several elements - roadways, public transportation services, rail facilities, sidewalks, bicycle routes and parking facilities. The elements of this transportation system are managed by various decision- makers and affected by several programs. This section of the plan attempts to project the state of Smoketown's transportation network, assuming existing trends and government programs continue unchanged. The drop in population and jobs in Central Loilisville (downtown and the neighborhoods bordering it) appears to have reduced traffic volumes in Smoketown. This implies traffic conditions have probably improved over the past decade in Smoketown. If current trends of population and job loss continue, traffic volumes in the neighborhood may continue to decline. Smoketown probably will continue to have periods of heavy traffic on some of its streets during peak traveling hours. Current projects intended to revitalize central Louisville,, such as the Galleria, expansion of medical facilities and the proposed neighborhood redevelopment project in Phoenix Hill, may increase traffic along portions of Broadway, Preston-Jackson and Shelby- Logan corridors. The high accident locations in Smoketown will be affected by changes in traffic volumes. If future traffic volumes increase or decrease, the number of accidents can be expected to reflect the change. Regardless of traffic volume changes, the vehicle and pedestrian safety problems will continue at the Clay and Lampton, Hancock and Lampton and Hancock and Jacob Street intersections. Double-parking and delivery vehicles will remain a problem at these intersections if nothing is done. If current trends continue in Smoketown, speeding will remain a problem on local streets. Clay, Hancock, Lampton and Jacob Streets will continue to experience higher speeds than are appropriate for local residential streets. Speed limit signs and an enforcement program would not materialize. Facilities for pedestrians would remain inadequate if current policies and trends continue. A lack of maintenance by adjoining property owners would result in areas of littered, overgrown and broken sidewalks. Pedestrian aids at intersections would be inadequate in some locations. Crosswalk lines would need to be added or repainted. Additional pedestrian walk signals may not be installed in locations needing them. Handicapped ramps would gradually be installed, as sidewalks are replaced. The sidewalks in Sheppard Square would be improved to correct drainage problems that currently inhibit their use. Bus service would be adequate if existing policies are continued. However, there would be a lack of transit shelters and benches for passengers. Local and state regulations appear to bar the installation of standard transit shelters in the interior of Smoketown due to the advertisements on the shelters. Public transportation for the elderly and handicapped is currently being improved, with expanded hours of service and additional vehicles. If no further action is taken, Smoketown residents will experience an improved level of special transportation services. However, if the elderly and handicapped rely entirely on public transportation to meet their needs,may, in the future, suffer a decline in mobility as a result of decreased government funding. Existing programs in Smoketown will result in upgraded railroad crossings. The Department of Public Works and the L & M Railroad Company have plans to improve the at-grade crossing in the vicinity of Kentucky Street east of Logan Street in 1982. Rubberized crossing facilities will be constructed on the track beds of this crossing. Projected future conditions were compared with policies contained in the-city's Community Development strategies and-the Comprehensive -Plan. These documents indicate desired conditions in City neighborhoods . C> The C> concentrate on housing, economic development and employment needs, and do not address transportation facilities. However, transportation facilities are necessary to accomplish Community Development Strategies in that the transportation network should function adequately so as not to conflict with economic development objectives (industrial growth, expansion of commercial services and retaining employment), or housing objectives (housing rehabilitation, new construction). The transportation problems and projected future conditions in Smoketown may detract from Community Development objectives, but should not in themselves discourage commercial and industrial development. To the extent that traffic nuisances and safety hazards detract from the residential environment, there is a conflict with the housing strategies. The Comprehensive Plan sets forth criteria more directly related to transportation facilities and their relationship to surrounding land uses. Inadequate intersections would conflict with Guideline T-1. Guideline T-15 addresses the nuisances for residential uses created by high-speed through traffic. The null (do-nothing) alternative would continue these nuisances within Smoketown. Guideline T-17 would be violated if transportation for the elderly and handicapped is curtailed or kept at current levels. The ~om~rehensiveplan. calls for revitalization of older areas and the failure to make transportation improvements may hamper fulfillment of this ob- jective. Under the null alternative, the transportation system and the entire neighborhood would experience both beneficial and negative impacts. Beneficial impacts include a continuation of good public transportation service and a street system that adequately handles traffic volumes in most areas. Negative impacts would include a continuation of traffic nuisances for residential uses, temporary congestion problems at some intersections, and potential disincentive for residential and economic revitalization.- The Community Develop- ment Strategies seek housing and economic development goals that could be hampered by projected- - future conditions. Several Guide- lines of the-comprehensive Plan would not be fully satisfied by -projected - future conditions. These conflicts arsue for makins some improvement to the transportation network in ~moGetownin order to underpin neighborhood revitalization efforts. Accordingly, maintaining the status-quo is probably not acceptable and action is appropriate to alter some less than desirable transportation conditions. C. ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS This section of the plan develops strategies to address Smoketown's transportation needs. Based on existing conditions and projections, a set of transportation problems was defined. Alternative strategies were generated for each problem, and were evaluated by the Smoketown Task Force and the planning staff. At meetings conducted on October 7 and November 12, 1981, the alternatives were discussed. Possible advantages, disadvantages and feasibility were considered. The alternatives are listed below, and the reasons for selecting the chosen alternatives are summarized. Following the discussion of alternatives, the transportation recommendations are made. 1. Generation of Alternative Strategies a. Vehicles Running Stop Signs at the Intersection of Clay and Lampton Streets, and Hancock and Lampton Streets, and Hancock and Jacob Streets. Alternatives: 1) Increase the height of stop signs so that they are not hidden by delivery trucks.

2) Repaint crosswalks and stop bar lines. 1 3) Paint the word "stop" on the pavement prior to the stop bar line. 4) Prohibit on-street parking near the intersection. 5) Put accent lighting at corners of these three intersection locations (such would identify key objects on the road such as pedestrian facilities, stop signs, etc.).

6) Enforce the 25 mph speed limits along Hancock and Lampton. 7) Improve nearby alleys to accommodate deliveries instead of using the existing street. 9) Create a loading zone in front of commercial uses, to eliminate double-parking by delivery trucks.

9) Do nothing--leave these three intersections in their present state. For the Clay and Lampton intersection, alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 are recommended. Higher stop signs would be visible in the presence of large vehicles (Alternative 1). Under Alternative 2, clearly marked crosswalks would inform motorists of pedestrians crossing the inter-section. Repainted stop bar lines would draw attention to need to stop. Under Alternative 3, painting "stop" on the pavement in front of the stop bar lines would inform motorists of the need to stop immediately ahead, particularly if the view of stop signs is blocked. Under Alternative 4, curb markings would be used to indicate where parking is prohibited at all times. This measure would further enhance visibility of the stop signs at the intersection. Under alternative 6, driver information (e.g. stop signs, presence of painted crosswalks, etc.) is generally better understood when traveling at a lower speed. For the Hancock and Lampton, and Hancock and Jacob Intersections, Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 6 are recommended. See the explanation of Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 6 for the Clay and Lampton intersection. b. Frequent Accidents at Broadway and Brook Street, Broadway and Jackson Street, Broadway and Floyd Street, Broadway and Campbell Street, and Breckinridge Street and Jackson Street. Alternatives: 1) Paint or repaint arrows on the street to direct automobiles into appropriate turning lanes. 2) Add additional signs informing motorists of permitted turning movements. 3) Combine alternatives 1 and 2 (more comprehensive in scope). 4) Institute driver awareness programs for those involved in traffic accidents. 5) Study the need to adjust stop lights. 6) Do nothing--do not address frequent accident locations. The following alternatives are suggested for each intersection: 1 and 5 for Broadway and Brook, 3 and 5 for Broadway and Jackson 3 and 5 for Broadway and Floyd, 1 and 5 for Broadway and Campbell, and 1 and 5 for Breckinridge and Jackson. Signal adjustment and improved signage are the only practical improvements available for these intersections. Reconstruction is not recommended because the design of the intersections is adequate and the level of accidents is not excessive in view of the volume of traffic. Pavement markings, improved signage or both are recommended depending on what currently is provided at each intersection. Signal adjustment is proposed for study at each intersection. This may include a longer "yellow" phase, or an "all red" phase, to allow traffic to clear the intersection before opposing traffic enters the intersection. c. Lack of Bus Shelters in the Interior* of Smoketown. Alternatives: *Because the standard TARC shelter, which includes advertising, is not permitted along State-maintained routes (Preston, Jackson, Shelby and Logan) or in residentially zoned areas, the following alternatives are proposed: 1) Provide benches at bus stops in the interior of the neighborhood where transit patronage is high.

2) Investigate the need for shelters on Broadway at Shelby and Campbell Streets.

3) Do nothing--keep transit passenger amenities at their existing level. Benches are low-cost and make transit usage more convenient (especially for elderly passengers). If there appears to be a need for a bus shelter in both directions, TARC will investigate the request. Transit shelters with advertising are not restricted along Broadway. d. Pedestrian Facilities (Such as Pedestrian Signals, Painted Crosswalks, Accessible Sidewalks) are Needed in Several Areas of the Neighborhood where Pedestrian Traffic is Significant. Alternatives: 1) Paint or repaint crosswalk lines. 2) Study the need to restrict on-street parking at some intersections, to increase clear-sight distances.

3) Study the need to provide pedestrians signals in areas of heavy pedestrian traffic. 4) Continue the policy of requiring handicapped ramps as a part of any sidewalk reconstruction project. 5) Seek funding for construction of handicapped ramps. 6) Do nothing--leave pedestrian facilities in their present state.

Alternatives 1, 2 and 4 are recommended. Clearly marked crosswalks would inform motorists of pedestrians crossing the intersection (Alternative 1). By restricting on-street parking within the immediate vicinity of the intersection (Alternative 21, motorists will have a clear field of view, and consequently will be more aware of pedestrians crossing the street. Alternative 4 will provide a gradual transition in making the neighborhood more accessible to the handicapped. Since existing funding sources for the construction of handicapped ramps are limited, Alternative 4 is a more realistic approach. During the planning process, the Task Force expressed concern for pedestrians, particularly children, crossing Hancock and Jackson Streets in the Sheppard Square area. The Task Force wanted a mid-block crosswalk in these locations. However, this solution is not considered desirable by transportation planners.' A mid-block crosswalk in these areas would require no-parking zones for 100 feet , ! ', on both sides of the crosswalk in blocks that are only 400 feet 1 i long. This restriction would deprive the area of needed parking spaces, with the possible result that the restrictions would not be '~ ! I I observed. Mid-block walkways without adequate clear-sight distances i I would only create a false sense of security, and additional pedes- ! trian hazards would arise. For these reasons, the plan does not , ~, include a recommendation for adding mid-block crosswalks on Jackson . , and Hancock Streets. e. Sidewalks in Several Parts of the Neighborhood are Littered with Trash and Overgrown with Weeds and Grass. Alternatives: 1) Encourage residents and property owners to maintain the adjoining sidewalks. 2) Institute a cooperative program of maintenance between the property owners and the City of Louisville.

3) Do nothing--leave the condition of sidewalks in their present state.

Alternative 2 is recommended. This approach recognizes the primary responsibility of the property owner, but would allow incentives to property owners, such as a tool library provided by the City to encourage maintenance. f. Bad Sidewalk Conditions Exist in Sheppard Square. Alternatives: 1) Work with the Housing Authority of Louisville to correct deficiencies in the pedestrian system. 2) Do nothing--leave sidewalks as they are. Alternative 1 is recommended. It would encourage residents of Sheppard Square to inform and document to the Housing Authority of Louisville problem areas in the pedestrian system. g. Parking Spaces Reserved for Handicapped Persons are Needed. Alternatives: 1) Reserve parking spaces for those handicapped individuals and businesses (using on-street parking facilities) that actually need a reserved space. 2) Assist handicapped individuals in obtaining the handicapped parking-permits from the Jefferson County Clerk's Office (License Bureau). 3) Do nothing--leave parking spaces on a "first come, first serve" availability basis. Alternatives 1 and 2 are recommended. Alternative 1 seeks to provide reserved handicapped space(s) on city streets where dwellings and businesses depend entirely on on-street space for parking needs and when a resident or frequent patron is handicapped. Alternative 2 enables the elderly and handicapped to park their cars in designated areas which bear the international handicapped symbol. h. Insufficient Transportation Services for the Elderly and Handicapped. Alternatives: 1) Develop a demand-responsive special transportation system (e.g., accessible van, neighborhood car-pool).

2) Continue to receive special transportation services in their present form. 3) Institute a program to explain available public transportation services. Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 are recommended. Alternative 1 would provide a decentralized response to resident needs that would not be dependent upon Federal funding and could be operated at a lower cost than TARC. An accessible van operated by a neighborhood or chari- table organization (such as the van operated by the California Block Club Federation) may meet the transportation needs of the elderly and handicapped. A neighborhood car-pool system may also meet transportation needs, if there are sufficient volunteers and an organization to coordinate the program. Referring to Alternative 2 TARC is presently expanding their specialized transportation services program through the purchase of additional and larger accessible vehicles. TARC plans on increasing the operating hours of their special services. Alternative 3 would make available TARC's Plobility Curriculum. This program explains services that increase the mobility of elderly and handicapped persons. i. Traffic Speeds on Clay Street are Excessive; There are no Speed Limit Signs; and the Street is Listed in the City Traffic Ordinance as a Major Through Street (where 35 mph Speed Limit is Authorized). Alternatives: 1) Remove Clay Street from the Traffic Ordinance as a "major through street", and post a 25 rnph speed limit.

2) Develop an enforcement program for the 25 mph speed limit on all local streets. 3) Combine Alternatives 1 and 2. I 4) Do nothing--leave Clay Street to remain as a "major through 1 street". Alternative 3 is recommended. Through the application of both I ' alternatives, drivers will be visually informed of what speed limit i they are locally allowed to travel. Enforced 25 mph speed limits are essential along local streets where there is a concentration of ' 1 residences. I I 2. Recommended Transportation Plan The recommended transportation plan for Smoketown presents recommendations and criteria for the future management and improvement of the neighborhood's transportation system. The recommended plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the City's Community Development Strategies. It is an application of these community- wide documents to Smoketown to address specific ~roblemsidentified by the Smoketown Task Force and planning-commission staff. The recommended transportation plan consists of a set of guidelines and a future transportation plan map (Figure 11-6). The guidelines contain the recommendations for the transportation system, the map illustrates some of these recommendations. The guidelines are organized into "general" and "facility specific" guidelines. The recommended plan is based on recommendations from the Smoketown Task Force. Once the recommended plan is approved by the Board of Aldermen, it will be used in several ways. The neighborhood plan will be considered during development of annual budgets for both general revenue and Community Development Block Grant funds. Proposed City-wide programs and other plans affecting Smoketown will be reviewed for their relationship to the neighborhood plan. The plan's recommendations also may be included in the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program and the State's five-year Capital Improvement Program for highways. a. General Guidelines (1) filinimize accidents between vehicles and pedestrians. (2) Reduce travel speeds in residential areas. (3) Develop transportation facilities in conformance with land use policies. Avoid roadway improvement projects and transportation system management practices that would increase nuisances to traffic sensitive land uses, unless critical traffic problems would result. (4) Provide various roadway improvements necessary to correct inadequate intersections. (5) Provide for the improvement of sidewalks and pedestrian safety aids in areas of significant pedestrian traffic. (6) Continue the policy of requiring handicapped ramps as part of any sidewalk reconstruction project. (7) Work with the Housing Authority of Louisville to correct deficiencies in the sidewalks at Sheppard Square.

(8) Provide for the parking needs of handicapped persons, including on-street and off-street parking. (9) Encourage residents and property owners to maintain the neighborhood's sidewalks. Institute a cooperative program of sidewalk maintenance between the property owners and the City of Louisville. (10) Organize a neighborhood-based transportation system to meet the needs of the elderly, the handicapped and persons without cars. b. Facility Specific Guidelines (11) At the intersection of Clay and Lampton Streets: a) Increase the height of the stop signs at all four corners. b) Repaint the crosswalks and stop bar lines. C) Paint the word stop (on the pavement) on the north and south sides of Clay Street. d) Prohibit on-street parking on: 1) Clay Street at the southeast corner of the Clay and Lampton intersection. 2) Lampton Street at the southwest corner of the Clay and Lampton intersection. e) Enforce a 25 84.P.H. speed limit along the entire corridor of both streets. f) Investigate the need for a red flashing beacon. (12) At the intersection of Hancock and Lampton Streets: a) Increase the height of the stop signs at all four corners. b) Repaint the crosswalks and stop bar lines. C) Enforce a 25 M.P.H. speed limit along the entire corridor of both streets. (13) At the intersection of Hancock and Jacob Streets: a) Increase the height of the stop signs at all four corners. b) -Paint crosswalk lines. C) Paint the word stop (on the pavement) on the north and south sides of Clay Street. d) Enforce a 25 M.P.H. speed limit along the entire corridor of both streets. (14) At the intersection of Broadway and Brook Streets: a) Repaint arrow pavement markings. b) Study the need to adjust traffic signal (for additional clearance). (15) At the intersection of Broadway and Floyd Streets and Broadway and Jackson Streets: a) Paint arrow pavement markings. b) Install overhead turning signs. C) Study the need to adjust traffic signal (for additional clearance). (16) At the intersection of Broadway and Campbell Street and Breckinridge and Jackson Streets: a) Paint arrow pavement markings. b) Study the need to adjust traffic signal (for additional clearance). (17) Install 25 M.P.H. speed-limit signs and establish an enforcement program on Hancock, Lampton, Jacob and Clay Streets (see graphic) . (18) Investigate the need for bus shelters along the south side of Broadway. (19) Paint crosswalk lines at the following intersections: a) Caldwell and Brook Streets b) Caldwell and Floyd Streets C) Caldwell and Jackson Streets d) Jackson and Lampton Streets e) Jackson and Jacob Streets f) Clay and Jacob Streets (20) Repaint the crosswalk lines at: a) Preston and Breckinridge Streets b) Preston and Lampton Streets C) Preston and Jacob Streets (21) Study pedestrian needs and implement appropriate safety measures in the block between Lampton and Jacob Streets on Jackson and Hancock Streets. (22) Remove Clay Street from the traffic ordinance as a major through street. c. Future Transportation Plan Map The future transportation system is defined by the existing functional classification of streets (Figure 11-1) and by the transporation recommendations above reflected in Figure 11-6. D. IMPLEMENTATION ~ This section of the plan identifies actions and programs to implement the Recommended Transportation Plan. Responsible parties for plan implementation are also identified. 1. Improving Visibility at Problem Intersections Three intersections in the residential core of Smoketown have a high potential for accidents due to poor visibility, high parking-demand and concentrations of pedestrians. Recommended measures to improve the intersections include increasing the height of the stop signs, marking "stop" on the pavement, enforcing the 25 mph speed-limit and providing crosswalk lines (see guidelines 11, 12, 13). The recommended improvements in signing and pavement markings should be provided by the Department of Traffic Engineering, and can be funded from the Department's operating budget. For the intersection of Clay and Lampton Streets, it is recommended that Traffic Engineering study additional improvements. Creation of "no parking" zones should be considered, to improve visibility for drivers and pedestrians. Creation of a loading zone, to eliminate double-parking should also be considered. Finally, the need for a flashing red beacon at this intersection should be evaluated, after the other improvements have been made and their effectiveness determined. 2. Improving High Accident Intersections Five intersections in Smoketown experience high traffic volumes and elevated accident levels (see guidelines 14, 15, 16). To help reduce the number of accidents, directional pavement markings are recommended. Repainting lane arrows and adding new ones are the responsibility of either the City Department of Traffic Engineering or the Kentucky Department of Transportation. This type of improvement does not require additional funding. Overhead signs indicating each lane's movement are also recommended for some locations. Traffic signals at all of these locations are recommended for study. Adjustments to the length of the "yellow" phase, or creation of an "all red" phase, may allow vehicles to clear the intersection and reduce accidents. Analysis of the traffic signals would be carried out by Traffic Engineering as part of its ongoing management of the system.

3. 25 mph Speed Limits Reduced traffic speeds have been recommended for local streets in residential areas. To achieve this, the Department of Traffic Engineering should post 25 mph speed limit signs at appropriate locations along Hancock, Clay, Jacob, Lampton-and Caldwell Streets. The signs should be backed up by periodic enforcement campaigns. The Traffic Bureau of the Louisville Division of Police can institute an intensive enforcement program, assigning a squad car or two motorcycles to areas of frequent speeding problems and returning to the neighborhood periodically as needed. The enforcement program should be initiated if speeding continues after the 25 M.P.H. speed limit signs are installed. A letter requesting the enforcement program should be sent by the neighborhood association. A final action to address traffic speeds on local streets concerns Clay Street's status in the Traffic Code. To ensure consistency between the 25 M.P.H. speed limit enforcement program and the street's official status, Clay Street should be deleted from the list of "major through" streets under Chapter 77 of the Traffic Code (Ordinance #62, series 1972, City of Louisville). The Traffic Engineering Department, with aid from the City Law Department, should request the Board of Aldermen to amend the ordinance. This action and the other implementation measures can be accomplished without additional appropriations. Revising the Traffic Code does not require funds; posting signs and enforcing the speed limit are within the scope of the departments' operating budgets. 4. Neighborhood Transportation Service A neighborhood sponsored transportation program is recommended to supplement the services provided by WHEELS and TARC. The Smoketown program would be designed to meet the needs of the elderly and other residents without cars, by providing flexible, demand-responsive routes. Medical appointments and shopping trips appear to be the neighborhood's greatest transportation needs. This transportation service would be based on volunteer labor and loaned vehicles. The Presbyterian Community Center and some neighborhood churches have vans that would form the heart of the system. Carpools could also be formed, with individuals offering rides in their automobiles. Volunteers would be needed to drive the vans, to provide information about the service and to coordinate requests for rides. A cooperative style organization could be formed, with individuals working for the transportation service in return for ride privileges. With vehicles can be obtained free of charge and there are adequate volunteers to staff the project, the only funding needed would be for gasoline and possibly some additional insurance. This could be funded through donations, small fund-raising events, Metro United Way or corporate sponsorship. Implementation of this project would require the cooperation and active participation of neighborhood churches, the Presbyterian Community Center, Smoketown Community Development Association (SCDA) and the Sheppard Square Tenants Council. These organizations would be responsible for publicizing the service, arranging volunteers and vehicles, developing funding sources and operating the program. 5. Facilities for the Handicapped Recommended measures to improve the mobility of the handicapped include provision of wheelchair ramps and the reservation of parking spaces for the handicapped. Wheelchair ramps are currently required by the City Department of Public Works for any project that entails sidewalk reconstruction. Continuation of this policy is recommended as a means of obtaining the needed improvements without straining public resources. The Smoketown Community Development Association and the Presbyterian Community Center should provide information about special parking programs for the handicapped. The Department of Traffic Engineering can reserve an on-street parking space in front of the residence of a handicapped person. To reserve a space, the Department must be contacted, and the need for the space demonstrated at a site visit. If approved, the Department will install a sign and mark the pavement to indicate that the parking space is reserved for the holder of a specific handicapped parking permit. Handicapped parking permits available from the County Clerk's office enable disabled persons to use reserved parking spaces at shopping centers, etc. 6. Crosswalks Seven intersections have been identified that should have crosswalks (see guidelines 13 and 19). Crosswalk lines already exist but need to be repainted at five intersections (see guidelines 11, 12, 20). Pavement markings are the responsibility of the City Traffic Engi- neering Department or, on State-maintained routes, the Kentucky Department of Transportation. Where repainting is needed, this will be done as part of normal maintenance. The City repaints pavement markings every other year. The City and the State, as appropriate, should add crosswalk lines at these intersections which have not had them in the past. A letter should be sent by the Smoketown Commun- ity Development Association requesting this action. No special funds would be required to implement these recommendations. 7. Sidewalk Maintenance Sidewalks in some parts of Smoketown are in need of maintenance and repair. In Sheppard Square, drainage problems and deteriorating sidewalk surfaces are problems. The Housing Authority of Louisville has scheduled an inspection of the sidewalks in Sheppard Square and will repair the most severe problems. Funding constraints prevent the Housing Authority from carrying out a major improvement of the area's sidewalks. The neighborhood plan supports these efforts to improve walkways in the housing project. Sidewalks in other portions of the neighborhood are the responsibility of the adjoining property owner. The plan recommends increased efforts by residents and property owners to maintain the sidewalks. Removing litter and controlling weeds would improve the appearance of the area and do not entail any expense. Replacing walkways is costly and no City funds are available for this purpose. The existing brick and concrete sidewalks in Smoketown are adequate, and replacement is not needed in most instances. "Neighborhood work-days" may encourage residents to take greater interest in the condition of their sidewalks. If tools for controlling weeds are considered helpful, they could be provided through the neighborhood tool library. The neighborhood association and block clubs should coordinate these cleanup efforts.

8. Transit Shelters and Benches Shelters have been requested for passengers using the east-bound Broadway bus route. Transit shelters with advertising are provided without public funding in areas where patronage justifies the shelter. TARC should investigate bus stops along the south side of Broadway to determine if shelters should be installed. It is also recommended that TARC evaluate the existing bus stop at the southwest corner of Jackson and Broadway. Curb cuts and heavy auto traffic at this location may endanger persons waiting at this stop. Relocation of the bus stop may resolve this conflict. In the interior of Smoketown, no transit shelters are permitted because of a policy governing advertising along State-maintained streets. Benches would help compensate for the lack of shelters, and can be provided at little cost. Simple benches, such as have been installed along Logan Street, could be built at high use bus stops. The neighborhood association could coordinate installation of benches, possibly with assistance from neighborhood businesses. The City Department of Public Works approves bench locations prior to installation to ensure that pedestrian traffic is not obstructed. 9. Study of Mid-Block Crossings in Sheppard Square During the planning process, concerns were expressed relating to children crossing Jackson and Hancock Streets in Sheppard Square. A playground and park in the central block of the housing project attract many pedestrians. Mid-block crosswalks proposed for these areas were considered infeasible because they would displace too many parking spaces in an area already short on parking, the blocks are only 400 feet long and crosswalk improvements are recommended for Jackson Street intersections. Nevertheless, the plan recommends further study of this issue. The need for making some improvements in these locations should be analyzed. If safety risks are unaccep- tably high, innovative techniques for slowing traffic and protecting pedestrians should be considered, such as raised crosswalks across the roadway surface (platform intersections) or crosswalks of a different material or color than the street surface.

E. PRIORITIES The preceding section of the plan identified measures to implement the transportation recommendations for Smoketown. In this final section of the plan, the sequencing and relative importance of implementation measures is established. For each implementation action, the responsible agency and timeframe for starting the action are indicated. The priority of implementation actions is also established. The priority indicated in the following Table was developed by the Smoketown Task Force, and agrees with the priorities recommended by the Planning Commission staff. The implementation measures for transportation recommendations are summarized in Table 11- 3. Recommended actions have been organized into three groups according to their relative priority. Highest priority actions are those measures that are most significant for implementation of the plan. The priority rankings indicate the importance of the recommended action, rather than the time at which it should occur. The "startup time'' entries indicate when steps should be taken to bring the implementation action "on line". Immediate actions should be undertaken as soon as possible to implement the recommended action after adoption of the neighborhood plan by the Board of Aldermen. Short-range actions should be undertaken between 6 months and 18 months after the Board's adoption of the plan. Measures to implement medium-range actions should be taken in the period between 18 months and 3 years from the time of plan adoption. TABLE 11-3 TRANSPORTATION: Priorities and Phasing

Implementation Measure Responsible Agency Startup Period

1. Highest Priority Actions Post and enforce 25 mph Traffic Engineering, Immediate limit Division of Police Measures to improve Traffic Engineering Immediate visibility Improving high accident Traffic Engineering Short range locations

2. High Priority Actions Improved crosswalks Traffic Engineering, Short range KDOT Improve Sheppard Square Housing Authority of Ongoing sidewalks Louisville

Sidewalk maintenance Property owners, SCDA Immediate I Neighborhood-based SCDA, churches Short range transportation program

3. Medium Priority Actions Handicapped parking Traffic Engineering, Short range spaces County Clerk, SCDA Transit shelters on TARC Immediate Broadway Benches at bus stops SCDA Medium range Study of mid-block Traffic Engineering Medium range crossings - - .- -.- - --

)PmbvYL~ nmd JdSerrmm -ty Functional Classification- -cosmdu- I , Expressway

II I r Malor Arterlals

111111111111 Minor Arterlals ---- Collectors Direction af Traffic Flow

NEIGHBORHOOD Traffic Volumes LEGEND

1111111111111 4000 - 5500 ADT*

mmmmmm 5600 - 7000 ADT ----- 7000 - 15,000 ADT -15,000 + *Avenge Dally Traffic - Transit Service Tarc Local Routes

@a@Tarc Stop with Shelter

Portland-Shelby

Preston-18th Street

Chestnut Street

Poplar Level Road

Source: Transit Authority of River City. August, 1980; Louisville and

NEIGHBORHOOD Adequacy of ~e~ Intersections I ,- SMOKETOWN-JACKSON I NElCHBORHOOD - ~ra~sportation Recommendations ImIa Enforce 25 m.p.h Speed Llmlt lnvest~gateNeed for Bus Shelters

Closed to Through Truck Traffic (upon ~xtenslonof Nlnth Street to Seventh St1 eetl 'KENTUCKY I'll. Housing III. HOUSING' A. NEEDS ASSESSMENT 1. Summary of Findings -- Smoketown's housing stock is old and declining. Most of the housing is over 60 years old, and the number of units in the neighborhood declined by 58% between 1950 and 1980. - - Smoketown is predominantly renter-occupied. The owner- occupancy rate is 23%, less than half the City-wide rate. -- Structural conditions are poor--83% of the housing units are substandard. Two-thirds of the housing stock is in need of major repairs, and 17% have deteriorated to an extent that clearance may be justified. -- The cost of repairing housing in Smoketown to meet housing codes is very high--a general estimate indicates the $17,694,000 would be required. -- The vacancy rate is high, about twice the city-wide average. Long-term vacancy is common in Smoketown. - - Selling prices are depressed. The Urban Studies Center showed median prices in the general area in 1977 to be approximately one-third the City-wide figure and to have declined substantially since 1970. More recent sales data shows a significant increase in sales prices, and may indicate strengthening demand for housing in this area. 2. Housing Profile a. Neighborhood Conditions Smoketown is primarily a residential neighborhood although industrial and commercial uses exist along its east, west and north sides. About 28% of the neighborhood is devoted to housing making it the dominant land use in Smoketown. A significant portion of Smoketown, 10% or 25 acres, is currently vacant. Much of this area was formerly residential. Existing land use is shown in Figure 1-2. Figure 1-1 delineates the residential core of Smoketown, where most of the neighborhood's housing is located. Smoketown's residential core is bounded by the commercial corridor along Broadway, industrial uses east of Logan, a mixture of commercial and industrial uses west of Preston, and the Shelby Park residential area south of Kentucky. The residential core itself is an area of mixed uses. Industrial development and a variety of commercial uses are located in the residential core, usually at street corners. Most of the commercial uses in the residential core are situated along Clay, Shelby and Breckinridge Streets. Several streets in the residential core carry significant traffic volumes. ~~> ; ! 8 ) Preston, Jackson, Shelby, Logan, Breckinridge and Kentucky Streets 8 i carry an average daily volume ranging between 4000 and 7000 vehicles. Although less than ideal, these traffic volumes do not significantly detract from adjoining residential uses. I Most of the residential core is in the R-8 Apartment District, with I existing commercial development in the C-1 and C-2 Commercial I I Districts. Portions of the residential core along Preston Street are zoned for commercial and industrial development. The R-8 zone allows single-family homes, duplexes, and apartments, to a maximum density of 58 dwellings per acre. I The housing stock in Smoketown is old. Home construction in the ~- , .. , Smoketown neighborhood began as early as 1855. Most houses were , .~ . built before 1919. The only major concentration of units built

since then is Sheppard Square, constructed in 1943. Today, there >,-~ .~ are approximately 1400 dwelling units in Smoketown. The majority of dwelling units, 49.2%, are single-family although there is a high , ,

percentage of multi-family units, 40.8%. About 10% of dwelling ~ ~ units occur in duplex structures. Ciood and brick shotgun houses are , , the predominant structural type. Considerable demolition has I occurred in this housing stock. There are several larger two and three story homes on the western side of the neighborhood, but most , , of this type is vacant and in poor condition or has been converted , , to non-residential uses. , , b. Housing Characteristics Smoketown presently has 1,397 dwelling units; this represents a 31.3% loss in the past decade. Smoketown has had a high rate of demolitions. Between 1950 and 1980, Smoketown lost 1979 dwelling units, a 58% decreasein the housing stock. Table 111-1 presents data on housing trends between 1950 and 1980. Owner-occupancy statistics provide an indication of stability in the resident population, and of the residents' commitment to the neighborhood. Owner-occupied structures generally are better maintained than renter-occupied structures. The rate of owner-occupancy has declined slightly in Smoketown over the past thirty years. The owner-occupancy rate in 1970 was 22.9%, 8 27 percentage points below the City average. Sheppard Square's 423 , , units of rental housing exaggerate the low level of owner-occupancy in Smoketown. Excluding those units, the neighborhood's owner- occupancy rate rises to 31%; however, this figure is still signifi- 1. cantly less than the City-wide average of 50%. Rental property in Smoketown is owned by non-Smoketown residents to l a large extent. The Urban Studies Center report, Housing in Louis- ville, found that the neighborhood cluster of Smoketown, Shelby Park, Phoenix Hill and Meriwether had the City's second highest incidence of rental property owned by residents of other areas. The report indicated that in 1976, 37% of the single-family homes and 63% of the apartment units were owned by absentee landlords. Absentee ownership is associated with inadequate property maintenance, property speculation, and neighborhood decline. Vacant housing occurs throughout Smoketown's residential core. The three blocks north and east of Sheppard Square have a high concentration of vacant residences. The 1981 vacancy rate for Smoketown is estimated at 13%. This estimate is consistent with past trends as shown in Table 111-1. The current estimate is nine times greater than the 1950 vacancy rate. In 1970, Smoketown's vacancy rate was nearly twice the City-wide average. An additional source of information on vacancy is the R.L. Polk Company's Profile of Change. Polk data for Census Tract 62, which includes most of the residential core, placed the 1978 vacancy rate in Smoketown at 13.5% as compared to the City average of 7.9%. This was less than the 1975 Polk figure of 14.7%. This drop may be due to frequent demolitions occuring in the neighborhood. The Polk Company reports also measures "two-canvass vacancies": long-term vacant properties, that are found vacant in an initial survey and are still vacant at the time of a second survey three to twelve months later. The two-canvass vacancy rate for Census Tract 62 in 1978 was 9.3%, as opposed to the City rate of 3.8%. Smoketown's housing stock is in poor condition. A windshield survey was conducted in July of 1981 to collect data on the condition of structures in Smoketown. The results of the survey are summarized in Table 111-2. Table 111-3 explains the five categories used to describe structural conditions. The survey is based solely on the exterior appearance of buildings; no interior inspection occurred. As a result, structures that appear to be in sound condition may actually need major repairs inside or require replacement of plumb- ing, heating or electrical systems. Given the age of Smoketown's housing stock, it is likely that many well-maintained structures need to have systems updated. Figure 1-5 in the Land Use section of the plan shows structural conditions in Smoketown. The windshield survey indicated that 83% of all residential structures in Smoketown are substandard. Only 17% of all residential structures are in the Sound or Sound Minor Repair categories. By far the majority of structures are in the Sound Major Repair category, 65%. There are 142 structures, 17% of the housing stock, in the Deteriorated and Dilapidated categories. No portion of Smoke- town is free of deteriorated housing and vacant lots due to housing demolition. Throughout the residential core, there is a juxtapo- sition of abandoned with well-maintained housing, commercial with residential use and housing with vacant lots. The worst conditions occur to the north and east of Sheppard Square. Conditions are also poor in the area between Clay and Shelby Streets. Alley housing, once a significant part of Smoketown's housing stock, has declined greatly. Where alley homes still exist, vacancy and deteriorated conditions are common. The Sheppard Square housing project, 423 units in 36 buildings, has been rated in the Sound Major Repair category. These buildings have a rundown appearance in places. TABLE 111-1

HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS

Smoketown -1950 -1960 -1970 -1980 Total Units 3376 2493 2035 1397

Renter-Occupied Units - % of occupied units) 73.0 71.3 76.6 77.1

Owner-Occupied Units - % of occupied units) 27.0 28.7 23.4 22.9

Vacancies - % 1.4 4.6 9.9 13.5 Average Household size 3.20 3.30 2.75 2.81

% of occupied units 98.6 95.4 90.1 86.5

. , H I City of Louisville &

Total Units

Owner-occupied units - % of occupied units

Renter-occupied units - % of occupied units

Vacancies - % Average Household Size

% of occupied units

- Source: 1950, 1960, 1970 U. S. Census Population and Housing

1980, Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission TABLE 111-2 CONDITION OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES Comparison of Conditions - 1960 and 1981 -1960 -1981 % % Sound/Sound Minor Repair Sound Major Repair Deteriorated/Dilapidated

% Substandard Condition of Structures - 1981 Structures Units Count Percent Count Percent

a. Sound 16 1.9 47 3.4 b. Sound Minor Repair 126 15.3 242 17.3 c. Sound Major Repair 541 65.6 927 66.4 d. Deteriorated 111 13.4 144 10.3 e. Dilapidated 31 3.8 3 7 2.6

Cost Estimate: Up-to-Code Improvements Sound Major Repair Deteriorated Sheppard Square Total Source: 1981 Planning Commission Windshield Survey, 1960 U.S. Census of Population and Housing, Housing Authority of Louisville. TABLE 111-3 DEFINITIONS OF STRUCTURAL CLASSIFICATIONS Residential Structures I A. SOUND Structure is sound in all respects -- in an I excellent state of repair. I

B. SOUND Structure is sound -- in need of only limited - ~ I STRUCTURE minor repairs, has no defects or only slight I MINOR defects which are normally corrected during the REPAIR course of regular maintenance (such as: lack of paint, slight damage to porch or steps; small ,. , cracks in wall or chimney; broken gutters or ..~: ., downspouts; slight wear on floor or door sills). - C. SOUND Structure is deteriorating -- in need of extensive STRUCTURE minor repairs, more repairs than would be provided MAJOR during the course of regular maintenance; one or REPAIR more defects and/or deficiencies or an intermediate nature which may or may not be economically feasible to undertake as a whole (such as: shaky or unsafe porch steps; holes, open cracks or missing material over a small area of the walls or roof; rotting window sills or frames), but not containing an apparent number of defects and/or deficiencies to justify clearance on just the condition of the structure. A general -or major rehabilitation job is required for these units. D. DETERIORATED Structure is deteriorated -- it contains a combination STRUCTURE of defects and/or deficiencies in structural and MAJOR non-structural elements of total significance REPAIR and to an extent possibly requiring clearance. Such defects and deficiencies being to the extent that the structure will not meet criteria for the C. "Sound Structure Major Repair'' classification. These units -are questionable for,rehabilitation because of the cost factor. I, ' , . ., E. DILAPIDATED Structure is dilapidated -- has at least two ,; BEYOND major structural defects (such as holes, open I. REPAIR cracks or missing materials over a large area of the walls, roof or other parts of the structure; i.; sagging floor, walls or roof; damage by storm or fire) to the degree requiring clearance. These poor housing conditions are the result of decades without normal maintenance. Over the past thirty years, demolition has been the only solution applied to poor structural conditions. Vacant, weed-overgrown lots are the result of this pattern. There are about 200 vacant lots in the residential core of Smoketown. This discourages maintenance and investment in the remaining homes. There are 31 residential structures, either boarded or vacant, in need of demolition at this time. Using the condition of structures survey, a gross estimate of the cost of rehabilitating Smoketown's housing stock can be developed. The cost estimates are based on an expenditure of approximately $18 to $20 per square foot, to bring structures into conformance with the housing code. Housing units classified as Sound Major Repair were assumed to need $15,000 in repairs; houses in the Deteriorated category were assigned $18,000. Based on discussions with the Housing Authority, $7.5 million is needed to rehabilitate the Sheppard Square apartments. The total estimated cost for up-to-code improvements is $17,694,000. Sheppard Square is the only public-assisted housing in Smoketown. Census Tract 62, in which Sheppard Square is located, has 1,077 dwelling units; 39% of the units in tract 62 are publicly assisted. This figure exceeds the 17% allowable percentage of federally assisted housing units for families in any one Census Tract. However, no designated elderly units exist in Census Tract 62. The 9% allowable percentage for elderly units would permit the construction of 97 elderly public-assisted units in Census Tract 62. Housing turnover, the number of occupied units with a change of occupant over a one-year period, indicates stability or transiency of a neighborhood's residents. The turnover rate of occupied housing units in Census Tract 62 is consistent with the City average according to data from R.L. Polk for 1975 and 1978. The rate of turnover has increased from 27.9% in 1975 to 33.8% in 1978. By comparison, the City average for those years was 37.8% and 34.3%, respectively.

In 1981, the average household-size in Smoketown of 2.81 persons is higher than the City average of 2.51. The City average has decreased steadily over the past three decades; whereas, Smoketown has experienced a fluctuating average-household size. Over the long-term, the average household-size in Smoketown has decreased from 3.20 in 1950 to 2.81 in 1981. 3. Profile of Residents Demographic information is presented in detail in the Land Use section of the plan. Characteristics of Smoketown residents that relate to housing are summarized below.

Smoketown's population has declined drastically since 1950. The 1980 Census showed 3,400 residents, a 68% loss since 1950. The number of dwelling units dropped as well, from 3,400 in 1950 to 1,400 in 1980. Smoketown has a high level of "female-head of household", in 1970, the neighborhood had three times the county- wide rate. "Female-head of household" is an indicator of lower incomes, and is related to welfare dependency. Income data reported in the 1970 Census also indicates that Smoketown is a low income area. Per capita income was 60% of the City average, and the gap I between median incomes in the County as a whole and Smoketown widened between 1960 and 1970. Elderly persons accounted for one out of six Smoketown residents. This is a significant increase since 1950, and is significantly higher than the City-wide rate. 4. Supply and Demand The supply of housing in Smoketown appears to exceed the level of demand within the community for this type of housing. Several indicators support this finding, although some more recent information points toward increasing demand. The long-term trend of declining numbers of housing units in Smoketown is a major indicator of inadequate demand. Since 1950 the area's housing stock has decreased by 58.6%, a precipitous decline that would not have occurred if demand were strong. The lack of new construction and rehabilitation projects in Smoketown also Indicates a lack of demand. Demand for housing has probably decreased in Smoketown as better quality housing in other neighborhoods became available to blacks. For example, the Portland and Shawnee neighborhoods in the 1950's and 60's drew many black residents away from traditionally black residential areas. This trend probably contributed to the structural decline of Smoketown and eventual loss of dwelling units as the higher income households moved out. The high vacancy rate in Smoketown is another indicator of inadequate demand. Vacancy has increased from 1.4% of the residences in 1950 to an estimated 13.5% in 1980. Despite the decrease in available housing units, which may represent demolition of the least desirable housing, occupancy of the remaining homes has decined substantially. Data from 1978 indicates that much of the vacancy is long-term (two-canvass vacancy) rather than short-term vacancy. Outmigration of inner-city residents has been a general trend, yet the figures show this trend to consistently be higher in Smoketown than for the City. The University of Louisville Urban Studies Center has published two reports that address current sales and price trends in Jefferson county: Housing in Louisville, July, 1978; and Housing Prices and Mortgage Lending, August, 1981. These reports provide an indication of demand for housing as shown in current market activity.

1 I The 1978 publication, Housing in Louisville, analyzed sales occurring between June of 1976 and May of 1977. During that period only 2.7% of single-family homes in the Meri-Jackson neighborhood* were *The Urban Studies Center combined Smoketown, Shelby Park, Meri- wether and Phoenix Hill and considered them as the Meri-Jackson neighborhood. Conditions in these other neighborhoods are generally better than in Smoketown, therefore, conditions in Smoketown may actually be worse than indicated by the Urban Studies Center. sold. This percentage of sales is much lower than the City-wide average. Sales of less than 3% of the single-family housing stock can indicate either a high degree of stability or a lack of demand for owner-occupied housing. In Smoketown, the very high two-canvass vacancy rate indicates that a lack of demand causes the low sales rate. However, the level of sales in this portion of the City picked up in 1979 and in 1980. The 1981 report shows an annual sales rate of 3.5% of single-family homes. This is part of a City-wide trend. Single-family sales in the Meri-Jackson neighborhood increased 23% over this period. This may be the result of the increased cost of new housing and the relatively lower price of older housing. Sales of single-family and multi-family structures increased again during 1979-80. Average price, median price and change in these variables are factors that investors often use to evaluate the risk of lending in a particular neighborhood. According to the 1978 study, Smoketown fell in the lowest average price category in the City. The average selling price for a single-family home was $7,431 in 1977, as compared to $21,661 for the City. The average price of a two to four unit multi-family structure was $9,380 compared to $20,047 for the City. These prices are very depressed relative to the balance of the City. Selling prices in Smoketown are probably even lower than these figures indicate, because of averaging with the Shelby Park and Meriwether neighborhoods. The 1978 Urban Studies Center report compared median housing prices in 1970 and in 1977 to determine the change in neighborhood property values. (The median price is the middle price, one-half of the houses sold for more and one-half for less.) An inflation factor was also used to reflect the change in the housing dollar between 1970 and 1977. The 1970 median housing value was inflated to 1977 dollars to determine if prices had dropped relative to inflation. The 1970 median value of houses sold in Meri-Jackson was $7,100 as compared to $12,500 for the City. Inflated to 1977 dollars, the median value for Meri-Jackson becomes $10,000. Yet the median value of houses sold in Meri-Jackson in 1977 was only $5,400. Considering inflation, the owner's equity had declined by 47% between 1970 and 1977. The fact that the 1977 actual value in dollars had declined since 1970 is a clear indication that the owner's equity and the lender's principal were in jeopardy. If forced to sell in 1977, the owner and lender may have lost a significant part of their initial investment or would have received a poor return on the investment. Homeowners in Smoketown could not expect to receive enough money for their houses to afford similar housing elsewhere. This trend in sales-prices impacts demand and jeopardizes housing values to the extent that there would have been a high lending risk for institutions. The neighborhood is not competitive or secure for investors or homeowners, as market demand is not strong enough to protect the principal loaned on the house. Disinvestment, a lack of bank financing and progressively rundown conditions are natural results of such slack market-activity. I Despite the bad market conditions identified in 1976-77 sales data, the 1981 Urban Studies Center report shows an improvement in sales prices in Smoketown's section of the City. Selling prices in the 11 Meri-Jackson area increased significantly between 1976-77 and 1978-79. The average sales price for single-family homes increased 25%; the average price of multi-family structures increased 29%. These increases compared favorably with the overall inflation rate of 16.8%. Although sales prices are still quite low, they have more than kept up with inflation, and exceeded the 14% City-wide increase in salss prices. Increased sales prices indicate strengthening demand for housing in this sector of the City. Sources of available financing for potential home buyers in a neighborhood also provides an indication of the market. Large percentages of sales financed by banks and savings and loan institutions are indications of stability. A large percentage of housing in Smoketown was financed by individuals, indicating that conventional financing was not readily available. In Meri-Jackson in 1977, 77% of all houses sold were financed by individuals, the fourth highest percentage in the City. This implies that the neighborhood was virtually locked out of institutional financing. Even mortgage companies, which typically finance the low end of the housing market, only financed 13.7% of total neighborhood sales. Banks and savings and loans financed 8.8%. The financing pattern was virtually unchanged in 1978-79. 5. Problems, Issues and Trends a. Substandard Housing Poor structural conditions constitute the most significant housing problem in Smoketown. The 1981 survey indicated that 83% of the housing units are substandard. Two-thirds of the area's housing is in need of major repairs; 13% may be beyond repair and 4% (31 structures) are in need of demolition. Substandard housing in Smoketown has increased substantially in recent years. In 1960, the Census showed 34% of the area's residential structures to be substandard. Because of the subjective nature of the rating process, these figures may exaggerate the trend of structural decline in Smoketown; the 1960 and 1981 surveys are based on similar evaluation criteria. The estimated cost of up-to-code improvements for housing in Smoketown, $17.7 million, is quite high. The magnitude of necessary public and private financial resources will make it difficult to correct Smoketown's housing problems. The continuing decline of the area's housing stock has several impacts on neighborhood residents: discomfort, health risks, a sense of hopelessness and poor self-image. b. Loss of Housing Demolitions have been the only solution employed to offset structural decline in the neighborhood. No new construction has occurred to replace the housing lost. This has created a long-term trend of decline in the number of housing-units available, and an increase in vacant, unmaintained lots. These trends pose significant problems for Smoketown. Since 1950, there has been a loss of nearly 2,000 dwelling units, 58.6% of the neighborhood's housing stock. The declining supply of low-cost housing may lead to a critical shortage, given the high cost of new construction and the decline in goverment subsidies for low income housing. Recent data from the Urban Studies Center showed a considerable increase in sales activity in the Meri-Jackson area that may be a result of the increased cost of new housing. In addition to reducing the housing stock, residential demolitions have created widespread problems for the remaining housing stock.

About 6.5% of Smoketown (13 acres) is vacant residentially zoned land. No residential block is free of vacant property. In most cases these lots are overgrown, and dumping has occurred on some lots. Depending on the occurrences of garbage and standing water, these lots may serve as breeding grounds for rats and mosquitos. The frequency of vacant lots serves to isolate residential uses from each other, lessening the security of the individual homes and discouraging property maintenance. Vacant lots in Smoketown raise the issue of appropriate future land-use and compatibility of new development with existing structure types. The Land Use section of the Plan has identified areas where residential infill development is appropriate. The issue of compatibility includes the scale, height and setback of new development. c. Vacancy of Residential Units

The vacancy rate for housing in Smoketown is high, 13.5% by the most recent estimate. Since 1950, it has grown rapidly and has been consistently higher than the City's average vacancy rate. In addition, the majority of vacant houses have-been vacant for long periods of time. Long-term vacancy leads to structural deterioration, through a lack of maintenance as well as vandalism. The high vacancy rate is a factor in the erosion of the neighborhood's housing stock discussed in the preceding issues. d. Dilapidated Residential Structures In Smoketown, there are 32 vacant, dilapidated structures, which in the worst cases are in danger of collapse and imperil nearby structures. Several dilapidated structures with roofs and floors caved- in were unboarded at the time of the Planning Commission structural survey. These pose a hazard to neighborhood children who do not comprehend the dangers of playing in these structures. These occurrences of dilapidation are also a deteriorating influence on surrounding resident attitudes and property values. e. Lack of Owner-Occupancy

Smoketown has a low rate of owner-occupied structures, 22% or less than one-half the City-wide rate even though single-family homes are the predominant housing type. A low rate of owner-occupancy is associated with inadequate maintenance, a declining housing stock, transiency of residents and a lack of commitment to improving the neighborhood. Data collected by the Urban Studies Center indicates that absentee ownership, ownership of property by persons not residing in the neighborhood, is prevalent in Smoketown. Housing in Louisville indicated that the Meri-Jackson area had the second highest incidence of home purchases by absentee owners. 37.5% of single-family homes and 63.2% of multi-family structure sold in 1976-77 were purchased by residents of other areas. This trend indicates that more stable elements such as families may be pulling out, and the market may become more speculative. f. Low Income Residents Income levels restrict the ability of Smoketown residents to pay for housing. This restricts the market for selling or renting housing. The median income of Smoketown residents declined to a level that was only 38% of the County-wlde median income between 1960 and 1970. Polk data for 1978 shows average household-income in the residential core of Smoketown to be one-third less than the City average. Not only is this a significant factor in obtaining financing, but it also gives an indication of private rehabilitation resources of neighborhood residents. Elderly residents on fixed incomes have difficulty maintaining their homes or paying rents that have been raised to offset repair costs. Displacement of long-term residents or continued decline of the housing stock are possible outcomes of the existing situation in Smoketown. g. Depressed Sales Prices The low prices of homes in Smoketown hinder the revitalization of the neighborhood. Until recently, state usury regulations, which set a maximum interest rate for loans under $15,000, had the effect of preventing conventional financing in Smoketown. Banks and savings and loans were restricted to an unprofitable interest rate for mortgages on housing in Smoketown's price range. This situation restricted the financing alternatives available to potential buyers and favored purchase by absentee owners and speculators over owner occupants. A more significant problem related to low selling prices is the high cost of housing repairs. The average selling price in 1978-79 was $9,300; the cost of up-to-code repairs is $15,000- $18,000. The low market value in the past means that an investor may not receive an adequate price to offset repair costs at the time the home is sold. Slack market conditions such as these discourage property owners from making needed repairs. 6. Public and Private Actions Government involvement in improving Smoketown's housing has been minimal. The recent major programs for improving housing, Urban Renewal and Community Development Block Grants, have not been applied to Smoketown. When the Community Development Cablnet designated target neighborhoods for revitalization in 1975, Smoke- town was not selected due to the depressed nature of the neighborhood. The matching private resources necessary to revitalize the neighborhood did not exlst in Smoketown, either in the form of a stable residential core or financial commitment from the private sector. Support and involvement by the neighborhood residents were also lacking. As a result of this decision, no government programs for housing rehabilitation have occurred in Smoketown. Without public incentives and subsidies, no significant private sector improvements have been made. The construction of Sheppard Square, a public housing project managed by the Housing Authority of Louisville, is the most significant government action affecting housing in Smoketown. The project contains 423 units, 30% of the neighborhood's housing units. It is currently scheduled for major improvements. Within the next seven years, the Housing Authority plans to completely rebuild Sheppard Square, retaining only the shells of the existing buildings. In the short-term, the Housing Authority will construct new roofs with peaked rooflines, to improve the project's image. This is scheduled I for early 1982. Sheppard Square has provided a large number of I decent, affordable apartments. In this regard it has been a major I contribution to Smoketown's housing supply. At the same time, "the projects'' reputation has probably had a negative effect on adjacent housing. The Lampton Street Baptist Church had proposed developing the vacant site on Caldwell Street as a housing project for the elderly in 1979, utilizing HUD 202 funds. The project was not approved because the applicant was not a non-profit corporation. The City also discouraged the project, due to the high crime rate and inaccesi- bility of basic neighborhood services. No follow-up on this project by the church has been reported. The Community Action Agency operates a weatherization program throughout the City. The repair work mainly concentrates on storm windows, doors and roof repairs. The agency reported that several I houses were weatherized in the Jackson area in 1981. I Finally, the Housing Department has had an effect on the worst housing in Smoketown, through its Demolition and Boarding Section. This agency seals vacant and open buildings, to discourage arson and other criminal activity and to protect children. The Department also demolishes buildings that are failing and pose a threat to public safety. This section of the plan indicates probable changes in Smoketown's housing stock, given existing conditions and assuming that existing trends and policies continue unchanged. In essence, this part of the neighborhood plan explores the likely effects of -not developing and implementing a plan for the future of Smoketown that alters present conditions and trends. The projections describe the effects of the status-quo approach, the decision -not to alter current forces affecting Smoketown. If current trends continue, few desirable changes would occur in the residential portions of Smoketown. The Sheppard Square housing project is scheduled for renovation within seven years (September of 1988) by the Housing Authority of Louisville (HAL). This would include extensive interior renovation on all levels except structural. Renovation of the project, including adequate landscaping may have a positive influence on surrounding areas. Because of the concentration of poverty in the projects and the depressed environment of the neighborhood, the housing project may continue to be vandalized. The neighborhood is a low income area and its housing stock reflects this. Residential structures, most in poor condition, will not improve significantly if current trends and programs remain unal- tered. Some houses will be maintained and others will be repaired through the efforts of individual property owners. No systematic improvement would take place; and environmental problems and market conditions would continue to discourage private rehabilitation. Many structures in poor condition will continue to deteriorate, due to their age, lack of maintenance and outdated mechanical systems. Additional homes will be abandoned. Residents who cannot afford to move or to renovate will continue holding on, living in deteriorated structures. The cycle of decline is a gradual process. More residential properties will continue to be demolished with 1-ittle demand for the resulting vacant lots. No new construction of housing can be anticipated in Smoketown under current programs and trends. The weeds and dumping problems associated with vacant lots will probably continue. High vacancy rates will continue, as a result of the deteriorated housing stock and poor environmental conditions. Expansion of non-residential uses in the residential core would occur, resulting in the loss of housing and diminishing the area's residential character. Firms expanding in Smoketown may lack design measures that enhance compatibility with adjacent homes. The continued decline of housing in Smoketown would create an increasingly marginal neighborhood at a prime location in Louis- ville. There is potential for a major redevelopment of Smoketown when the existing development is no longer viable. However, if no overall direction is provided, land will be redeveloped on a piece- meal basis, decreasing the likelihood of implementing a total redevelopment package. The effects of the null alternative on residential use in-~- Smoketown were compared with the City's Community Development Strategies and the Comprehensive Plan for bouisville and Jefferson County to assess the desirabilitv of maintainina the status auo. Strateoies-2--- and-- guidelines re1e;ant to smoketown are listedAin ~able111-4. The comparison indicates that the continuation of existing trends and programs would not meet any of the Community Development Strategies or Comprehensive Plan's guidelines. An existing residential neighborhood would decline further rather than being revitalized (Guide- lines R-1 and R-2 and CD strategy 2). Low-cost housing options would be reduced rather than strengthened (R-16). Construction of new housing would not occur under present conditions (CD strategy - \ Table 111-4

Comprehensive Plan Guidelines and Community Development Strategies Related to Smoketown Housing Guideline R-1: Protect residential neighborhoods from adverse impacts of proposed development and land use changes. Guideline R-2: Create housing redevelopment, rehabilitation and reinvestment opportunities in older and declining neighborhoods. Guideline R-16: Expand opportunities for residents to live in sound, affordable housing in locations of their choice by: . . . upgrading existing housing. CD Strategy 2: Improve the City's existing housing stock through rehabilitation, code enforcement, preservation, basic urban services, and special projects such as Neighborhood Housing Services (NHS), Section 8, public housing modernization, and the like. CD Strategy 3: Create a climate in the city for private-sector construction of new housing, especially in the targeted areas and through the Home Builders project. '1 C. ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Problems and issues facing housing in Smoketown and probable future housing conditions identified in preceding sections of the plan demonstrate the need for improvement. This section presents alternative strategies for addressing Smoketown's housing needs and develops a recommended course of action. The housing recommendations were developed from an alternatives selection process carried out by the Smoketown Task Force and the planning staff in October and November of 1981. The alternatives selection process is summarized here. Alternatives are listed and the rationale for selecting the alternatives is stated. Finally, the recommended housing plan is presented. 1. Generation of Alternative Strategies a. The Majority of Smoketown Housing is Substandard Alternatives: 1) Make no attempt to improve the existing housing stock. 2) Repair housing conditions that threaten the health and safety of occupants and hasten structural decline. 3) ~ncouragehousing rehabilitation throughout the neighborhood through techniques such as code enforcement, low- cost qrants- and loans. 4) Focus rehabilitation efforts and financial assistance -in some portions of the neighborhood. 5) Encourage home-ownership (see issue 4). 6) In areas with many vacant lots and poor housing conditions, pursue clearance of existing structures and assem- ble large sites for new housing development. 7) Combine housing clearance and site assembly with rehabilitation of existing units throughout the neighborhood to create a desirable residential environment. 8) Conduct a combined rehabilitation and clearance/redevelopment program in limited portions of the neighborhood whepe

the housing. need and potential- for improvement- are greatest. Alternatives 2 and 8 are the principal recommendations. Alternative 8 combines elements of several alternatives. This approach recognizes that rehabilitation efforts will be more effective in con- I junction with selective demolition and the creation of parcels large enough to attract new development (alternative 6). Alternative 8 would focus rehabilitation and new construction in small areas to , achieve the greatest impact with limited funds (alternative 4). Alternative 2 is recommended to address housing deterioration throughout the neighborhood. This alternative would rely on code enforcement to achleve housing repair. Accordingly, it does not entail major public expenditure and should stop the decline of existing housing, especially rental property. Alternatives 3 and 5 are also recommended. The concept of areawide housing rehabilitation is supported, but would depend on private sector funds. As alternative 8 takes effect, investments by property owners should increase. Alternative 5 is discussed as issue d. b. Dilapidated Residential Structures in Smoketown Alternatives: 1) Do nothing, continue to allow decline and eventual demolition of these structures. 2) Work with the City to identify structures that are a threat to public safety and have them repaired or torn down. 3) Contact owners of dilapidated properties and encourage them to repair or demolish these structures. Recommended alternatives are 2 and 3. Alternative 2 would assist the responsible City department in identifying safety hazards, and would ensure that problems perceived by neighborhood residents are addressed. Alternative 3 may reduce the amount of time needed to achieve demolition or repairs. This approach may also add a spirit of cooperation that may contribute to more responsible property management. c. Long-Term Vacancy of Residential Properties Alternatives: 1) Continue to allow structures to stand vacant. 2) Insure that long-term vacant properties are maintained by the property owner or sold. 3) Encourage occupancy of vacant properties through public acquisition and/or rehabilitation financing packages, such as through the Urban Land program. 4) Implement public improvements (new sidewalks, trees, recreation facilities) that strengthen demand for housing in the neighborhood. 5) Encourage a program of combined clearance and rehabilitation of substandard and vacant housing (see Issue a). 6 Develop a marketing campaign to attract prospective residents and strengthen demand for housing in Smoketown.

Alternatives 3 and 5 are the principal recommendations. Alternative 5 would improve housing conditions and strengthen demand for housing in Smoketown. Alternative 3 is more directly related to currently vacant structures. This approach would seek owner-occupants for vacant structures, and would result in better property maintenance; Alternative 6 is recommended to supplement the neighborhood improvement achieved through alternatives 3 and 5. A marketing program could build on improving neighborhood conditions to further strengthen demand. Alternative 2 is recommended as a means of limiting the impact of vacant housing on adjacent properties. It does not address the root of the problem, but would keep it from getting worse. Alternative 4 would require major public expenditures. If such funds are available, public improvements would help to strengthen demand for housing in Smoketown. d. A Very Low Rate of Owner-Occupancy Alternatives: Ii 1) Allow the market to continue to determine owner-renter characteristics of the neighborhood. 2) Encourage rehabilitation of abandoned and vacant property by owner-occupants through arrangement of financing packages and homesteading. 3) Encourage co-operative housing. 4) Encourage new construction on vacant property for owners intending to live in the property by providing incentives such as tax breaks, donation of building sites.

Recommended alternatives are 2, 3 and 4. Owner-occupancy contributes to stability in the neighborhood. An owner-resident has greater control over the condition in which a structure is maintained. These three recommendations present opportunities by which owner-occupancy in the neighborhood can be increased, in available existing structures, in joint ventures (cooperatives) and in new construction. Alternative 2 is most likely to be implemented in the short-term, because it is based on existing structures. Cooper- ative ownership is generally applied to multi-family housing, which is uncommon in Smoketown. A cooperative program could be developed, for existing structures or new construction. New construction will be difficult to achieve under current financial conditions and federal housing policy. This is a long-term solution to the owner- occupancy problem. e. Inability of Elderly Owners to Make Necessary Repairs 1) Allow the existing situation to remain. 2) Encourage repair of these homes through available government programs. 3) Create a neighborhood-based emergency repair program. 4) Create a weatherization program. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 are recommended. Emergency repairs should be made through existing programs, to the extent possible. This approach relies on existing organizations and does not entail delays while programs are created and funded. The inability of existing programs to meet City-wide needs and the concentration of emergency repair needs in Smoketown indicate that a neighborhood based program is justified. A self-help type program may also provide job-train- in9 for neighborhood residents. Weatherization can significantly reduce heating costs, making more money available for housing repairs and other basic needs. Weatherization is most critical for elderly residents, due to their physical condition, but would benefit the entire neighborhood. 2. Recommended Housing Plan Recommendations and criteria for housing in Smoketown are presented here. The housing plan for Smoketown was developed as a means of addressing housing problems identified by the Smoketown Task Force, neighborhood businesses, and the Planning Commission staff. The plan consists of a set of guidelines and a housing recommendations map (Figure 111-1). The guidelines contain the recommendations for the neighborhood; the map serves to illustrate some of the guidelines and define areas for which specific housing recommendations have been made. The problem identification and alternatives evaluation process conducted with the Committee during the fall of 1981 is the primary source of the guidelines. The Steering Committee approved these guidelines at a meeting conducted on January 6, 1982. The recommended housing plan is an application of the goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the City's -Com- munity Development Strategies to the specific conditions existing in Smoketown. Once the recommended plan is approved-. by the Board of Aldermen, it will be used in several ways. The neighborhood plan will be considered during development of annual budgets for both general revenue and Community Development Block Grant funds. Proposed City-wide programs and other plans affecting Snoketown will be reviewed for their relationship to the neighborhood plan. Future zoning change requests within the boundaries of Smoketown will be evaluated in light of this plan. The plan may also serve as the basis for re-zonings initiated by the Board of Aldermen. a. Guidelines Establish a cooperative program between the City and neighborhood residents to facilitate demolition of unsafe housing. Repair housing conditions that threaten the health and safety of occupants and hasten structural decline. Promote weatherization of existing housing stock to reduce heating costs. Encourage occupancy of vacant properties through public acquisition and/or rehabilitation financing such as through the Urban Land program. Also a marketing campaign and general techniques to improve the image of Smoketown are recommended to increase demand. Encourage increased home-ownership by neighborhood residents through 1) arrangement of financing packages and homesteading of abandoned and vacant property, 2) cooperative housing and 3) encouraging new construction on vacant sites for owners intending to live on the property. Support rehabilitation of sound residential structures throughout the neighborhood. Focus financial assistance for rehabilitation in areas of greatest need and where the potential for neighborhood improvement is the greatest. Support a redevelopment strategy that combines clearance and new housing construction with housing rehabilitation in several larger tracts in the neighborhood (see Figure 111-1). (9) Consolidate adjacent vacant lots into larger parcels for cost-efficient new residential construction. (10) Support infill construction on individual lots throughout the residential portions of Smoketown. (11) Redevelopment projects should be compatible with existing neighborhood scale, setbacks and design. (12) Small scale residential infill should adhere to existing setbacks, massing and structural heights. (13) Encourage repair of homes owned by the elderly through available government programs and a neighborhood based emergency repair program. (14) Rehabilitate Sheppard Square to provide a major positive inducement to private investment in the neighborhood. b. Housing Recommendation Map Figure 111-1 illustrates some of the guidelines and defines areas where specific housing recommendations have been made. D. IMPLEMENTATION Actions and programs to implement the housing recommendations for Smoketown are identified in this section of the plan. Responsible implementing agencies are listed and estimated costs, when known, are given. 1. Neighborhood Housing Repair Program A neighborhood-based housing repair and improvement program is recommended. This program is based on the recognition that the existing housing stock in Smoketown is an important resource for low and moderate income people, that will be needed for the foreseeable future. The repair programs can function at several different levels, depending upon the funding and expertise available. Weatherization: At its most basic level, the housing improvement program should provide training and materials for weatherization. Weatherization consists of low-cost techniques to reduce heat loss, and can significantly reduce energy costs. Because renters pay their own utilities directly, or are subject to rent increases due to increased energy prices, weatherization would benefit owners as well as renters. Property owners would have more money to apply to housing maintenance and repair as a result of reduced heating bills. Home weatherization in Smoketown could be accomplished through Project Warm. This program trains volunteers to do the work, and provides free materials for the volunteer to weatherize his own house, on the condition that he weatherize at least three homes of elderly and handicapped persons. Many homes in Smoketown could be weatherized through volunteers working on their own homes and those of the elderly. For a fee, volunteers may be willing to weatherize rental property and homes owned by persons who have not participated in Project Warm and are not eligible for assistance. This would be relatively low cost to the property owner; materials cost between $25 and $45 per house, between 5 and 20 person-hours comprise the labor costs. Painting: A second element of the housing repair program would entail house painting. This can have a big effect on the area's appearance and on residents' attitudes toward Smoketown. Painting is a housing improvement measure that many persons are capable of doing for themselves. Some supervision is recommended to ensure that this self-help project is not wasted effort. Experienced persons should inspect houses before they are painted, to ensure that the siding is sound, firmly fastened, not being damaged by faulty guttering, and adequately scraped. Volunteers could perform this role, or paid staff, depending upon the resources available. The tool library would play an important role in the painting program. Free paint and necessary equipment would be supplied as part of the tool library. This would enable owners to improve their properties without any out-of-pocket expense. Renters could trade housing painting services for rent payments. In other neighborhoods, volunteers have painted the homes of elderly and handicapped persons. The major requirements for a successful painting program are residents' participation and creation of a tool library. Tool Library: Housing improvement efforts in Smoketown would benefit greatly from a tool library. This facility would provide building materials and loan tools for housing repair and property maintenance. It would enable self-help improvement projects to be undertaken in Smoketown. Depending on the level of funding, building materials could be available free of charge or at reduced prices. The tool library should be available to renters as well as owners, to maximize housing improvement efforts in the area. Work done by renters may substitute for rent. A staff position should be funded with the tool library, to manage equipment and provide technical assistance. The staff person could coordinate volunteers in the painting program and on the repair team. This person should have experience in the construction trades so that he can effectively direct the improvement program. Housing Repair: In addition to weatherization and painting, more extensive housing improvements are needed. Repairs to structures and mechanical systems are necessary to prevent further decline of the existing housing stock. If adequate expertise can be acquired, Smoketown could develop its own housing repair team. The team would work in several capacities. It could assist individuals in efforts to maintain their own homes. For elderly and handicapped home owners, repairs would be made by the neighborhood team with charges based on the homeowners' ability to pay. This aspect of the program would function similar to New Directions' emergency repair program. A final application of the repair team would be improvement of rental housing. Small-scale repairs that are not provided by the property owner could be made by the neighborhood team at the tenant's request, under the repair and deduct program (see Item 3). More extensive improvements may also be provided, if landlords and tenants agree about needed repairs and acceptable rents. The final portion of the housing improvement program is the creation of a 111-22 repair team to ensure a well established program and effectively managed effort. The neighborhood association should take the lead in organizing the housing improvement program. A committee dealing solely with this topic may be needed to coordinate housing improvement efforts. The repair team could be organized as an element of the neighborhood association, or as a non-profit housing corporation. As an alternative to creating a new organization, an existing non-profit housing corporation could shift its area of I operation to meet Smoketown's housing needs. The assistance of New I Directions, Inc., should be sought in establishing and administering the housing repair program because of this groups experience. Staffing of the repair team will depend upon the level of interest in the neighborhood, the number of skilled volunteers and the size of program desired. Community Development funds should be sought for this program. Until such time as the neighborhood repair team is organized, it is recommended that the emergency housing repair program operated by New Directions continue to serve the elderly and handicapped homeowners in Smoketown. Average costs under New Directions' program are $1,500 per house for emergency repairs.

2. Code Enforcement A systematic housing inspection effort is recommended for the entire Smoketown area. Enforcement should focus on those elements of the housing code that are essential to the safety of building occupants. This program, known as "sensitive code enforcement", does not deal with cosmetic improvement needs or repairs that unduly inflate the cost of housing. The Housing Department negotiates with the property owner those repairs that are necessary to keep housing livable and affordable. The Department realizes the problems of housing that has been vacated or abandoned, and works hard to prevent this outcome of the inspection process. Code enforcement is most effective for renter-occupied housing, which makes it an effective mechanism for Smoketown where 68% of the housing (excluding Sheppard Square) is renter-occupied. For owner-occupied housing, code enforcement only deals with problems affecting the building's exterior. The proposed forum explaining the code enforcement program should improve its effectiveness (see Item 3). No special funding is required for this implementation measure. The existing staff of housing inspectors could complete the Smoketown area within one year. 3. Housing Education Program A series of actions are recommended to inform neighborhood residents on a variety of housing issues and programs. The neighborhood association would be responsible for coordinating these actions. Outreach Program: This effort could take information on housing maintenance needs and available housing programs to neiqhborhood residents. Preventive maintenance plays-a major role in preserving the existing housing stock and reducing the cost of future repairs. Relatively simple maintenance practices such as cleaning gutters, checking roofs, and inspecting pipes can prevent serious structural problems. Because of its experience in this area, New Directions, Inc., could be contacted to help develop the content of the home maintenance education program. As part of the outreach program, I] participation in the available housing improvement programs -- 1 weatherization, painting and repairs -- should be encouraged (see Item 1). The housing education program would be carried out as a volunteer effort coordinated by the neighborhood association. A committee of the Smoketown Community Development Association (SCDA) I or representatives from block clubs could canvass the area, going from door-to-door or conducting block-level meetings. A brochure I summarizing maintenance tasks and available housing programs would support these efforts. No special funding would be needed for the outreach program. Property Owner and Tenant Clinics: One or more meetings of resident property owners, absentee owners and tenants are recommended, as hart or-efforts to improve Smoketown's housing stock. The purpose of these meetings is to explain the code enforcement program and the responsibilities of tenants and property owners. Housing Department personnel should participate to explain the intent of "sensitive code enforcement". The mechanics of the inspection process, enforcement powers and administrative hearing procedures should be explained. The Tenants Union should take part in these forums, to explain rights and responsibilities under the Uniform Residential Landlord Tenant Act. In particular, the repair and deduct program should be considered. Repair and deduct allows tenants to make critical repairs, costing up to $100 or + of a month's rent, and deduct the expense from future rent. Meetings that include both tenants and property owners should prevent misunderstandings arising from the code enforcement program. By fully informing tenants and landlords of the program's intent, negative effects such as sharp rent increases and abandonment of houses should be minimized. To achieve this result, it will be necessary to publicize the meetings among Smoketown residents and property owners. The neighborhood association should work with the Housing Department to determine the best means of notifying absentee owners. Beyond the initial meeting(~),the Tenants Union may be needed to handle problems and counsel residents. To provide this service, ongoing funding of the Tenants Union is recommended to meet the staff needs for Smoketown and other neighborhoods undergoing code enforcement. Community Development funds have been used in the past to fund Tenants Union activities. Urban Renewal Redevelopment of portions of Smoketown having the worst housing conditions and greatest concentration of vacant lots, is recommended in the plan. These areas are identified in Figure 111-1. The property acquisition and site assembly powers that can be exercised within an urban renewal district are the best means of achieving this redevelopment. Creation of an urban renewal plan for Smoke- town, therefore, is recommended in the future. At such time as the City's commitments to other urban renewal projects (Station Park, Phoenix Hill, Broadway Project) have been substantially fulfilled, the Smoketown area should be considered. Available financial resources should be assessed to determine the size of the urban renewal project. Public funds for site acquisition and public improvements, and the probable level of private investment in the area need to be considered. As part of the urban renewal plan, housing conditions will need to be re-assessed. Depending on the extent of rehabilitation, repair and new construction that have occurred by that time, it will be necessary to re-define the areas where coordinated rehabilitation and clearance/reconstruction are needed. In determining areas to be included in the urban renewal district, the status of the neighborhood shopping center project should be considered. It may be necessary to include the shopping center site in the urban renewal district to facilitate site assembly for the proposed development. Participation of the neighborhood association in the urban renewal plan is essential. The scope of the project and its effect on the neighborhood should be defined with the neighborhood association's assistance. The Community Development Cabinet would be the agency responsible for managing the urban renewal process for Smoketown. The Cabinet would develop the urban renewal plan for approval by the Planning Commission, Urban Renewal Commission and Board of Aldermen, and would oversee plan implementation. An urban renewal district requires substantial public funds; the actual amount is determined by the size of the project, extent of clearance and relocation, and the amount of public subsidy for redevelopment. CDBG funds would be needed for the urban renewal district, supplemented by other federal funding sources that may be available at the time project execution. Tax- increment financing, if the necessary enabling legislation has been adopted, would provide a local source of funds for Smoketown's redevelopment. A recommendation for an urban renewal district for some portions of Smoketown at some time in the future could have undesirable conse- quences. In the past, property owners have reduced property maintenance in anticipation of widespread clearance by urban renewal. It should be emphasized that the urban renewal program for Smoketown would entail only limited clearance in a small-part of the neighborhood. Furthermore, property maintenance should not be curtailed; if a well maintained structure is to be acquired, the owners are paid accordingly. 5. Housing Rehabilitation In conjunction with the housing repair and redevelopment programs, housing rehabilitation is recommended in Smoketown. Rehabilitation, which may entail replacement of mechanical systems as well as structural repairs and general improvements, requires a major investment. Housing rehabilitation is supported throughout the neighborhood; however, public programs for housing rehabilitation should be concentrated in a sub-area of Smoketown. The rehabilitation needs of the entire neighborhood, 616 houses at an estimated cost of $10.1 million, far exceed the amount of funding the neighborhood is likely to receive. It is recommended that at such time as the housing needs of the City's existing Neighborhood Strategy Areas (NSA) are substantially met, a portion of Smoketown should be designated an NSA. This designation makes the area eligible for CDBG funds. The NSA should include the area surrounding the proposed shopping center site and as much of the housing recommended for rehabilitation (Figure 111-1) as can be carried out with the available funds. Within the NSA, owner-occupied housing is eligible for the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program administered by MISCO. This program offers deferred re-payment and reduced interest loans for up-to-code housing improvements. The extent of subsidy depends upon family size and income; up to $20,000 may be borrowed. The neighborhood association should work with the Community Development staff to encourage owner-occupants to participate in this program. Because of the high percentage of rental property (70%) in the neighborhood, some incentive for rehabilitation of these units is also needed. As of this writing, the Community Development Cabinet is studying possible programs to apply to rental housing. After the NSA's owner-occupied housing is improved, investment property should receive rehabilitation assistance. Two factors may limit the rehabilitation program in Smoketown. In some instances, houses were not properly constructed and contain certain inherent deficiencies that make them unsuitable for major improvements. Inadequate financial resources are a second limiting factor. The available MISCO program is based on subsidized loans; lower income and elderly residents may choose not to participate in the program because of the 15-year mortgage. The limited objectives of the housing repair program (Item 1) are better suited to the financial status of some Smoketown residents. At this time, federal housing policy is in a state of flux, old programs have been canceled but have not been replaced. New federal programs may help meet the area's housing needs. Achieving the desired rehabilitation of the area's housing stock will require a long-term effort and various implementation techniques. Other measures taken to improve Smoketown, such as rezoning, neighborhood cleanup, street trees and new residential construction will encourage housing rehabilitation. Sheppard Square's 423 dwelling units are a major element of Smoke- town's housing stock. The plan supports the Housing Authority's efforts to improve Sheppard Square. Gabled roofs are being constructed on several buildings in the project, to enhance the residential atmosphere. The Housing Authority is seeking CDBG funds to reconstruct the roofs on the remaining two-thirds of the buildings. The Housing Authority intends to completely renovate all of Sheppard Square with a HUD modernization grant. This would occur within 5 to 7 years if adequate funding is made available. The estimated cost for rehabilitating Sheppard Square is $7,542,000, excluding administrative costs. 6. Improving Occupancy Housing that remains vacant for long periods is a problem in Smoke- town that can be addressed by several different implementation measures. Direct Contacts: The neighborhood association can play an active role by contacting owners of vacant houses and encouraging them to use or dispose of the property. This effort can be made more effective by linking it to the Environmental Nuisance Code which prohibits high weeds, accumulation of litter, etc. Neighborhood cooperation with the City Building Inspection Department to enforce these regulations would provide an incentive to either use or dispose of the property. This approach to improving occupancy rates would require work on the part of the neighborhood association, but no funding would be required. Urban Homesteadinq: There are approximately 120 residential structures in Smoketown that are seriously tax delinquent. Acquisition of vacant, tax delinquent structures is recommended to create a pool of houses that can be turned over to owner-occupants at low cost. By limiting this program to vacant structures, there would be no displacement of renters or.10~-incomehomeowners. Financial assistance for purchasing and rehabilitating vacant houses could be had from the City's housing rehabilitation loan program (see Item 5). The neighborhood housing repair program and tool library would help owners to make necessary improvements at low cost. The Community Development Cabinet's Urban Land Program would manage the homesteading program, identifying properties to be foreclosed and administering the re-sale of acquired properties to owner-occupants. The City Law Department would be responsible for the legal proceed- ings. The operating budgets of these departments would cover the cost of carrying out these recommendations. 7. Energy Conservation Measures Reduced home heating costs are recommended in the Plan, to keep housing affordable, avoid utility shut-offs and free up money for housing maintenance. A major way of achieving these goals is Project Warm, discussed in Item 1. In addition, more extensive energy conservation measures should be applied in Smoketown. The weatherization program conducted by Community Action Agency for elderly and handicapped persons provides storm doors and widows and structural improvements needed for energy conservation. The neighborhood association should help to publicize this program among neighborhood residents. Housing repair and rehabilitation projects in Smoketown should include measures to improve energy efficiency, such as adding insulation and making structures air tight. The Housing Department's rehabilitation loan program already includes improvements of this type. The neighborhood repair and self-help improvement program should address energy conservation (see Item 1). The Urban Alternative Homestead demon- strates a variety of energy conservation measures that can be used in older homes such as Smoketown's. It is recommended that the energy conservation demonstrations and classes offered by Environ- mental Alternatives be publicized through the neighborhood association. 8. Infill Residential Development Measures to encourage new residential construction are addressed in the Land Use section of the plan, part D.5. The Plan recommends that infill housing development be compatible in design with the existing housing in the neighborhood. This goal should be promoted by the agencies encouraging infill development. If the City donates sites for infill construction, appropriate setbacks, height and scale should be required of the new development. Use of the designs for infill housing developed for California neighborhood would promote compatibility between new and old houses. Appropriate design in relation to the existing housing stock should be a criteria for receipt of any grant or loan for new housing construction. 9. Demolishing Unsafe Structures As part of efforts to improve the neighborhood's housing stock, structures that are "dilapidated beyond repair" need to be demolished. It is recommended that the neighborhood association coope- rate with the City to achieve the necessary demolitions. The association should monitor housing conditions and compile a list of structures that may need demolition. Property owners should be contacted concerning the dilapidated condition of these structures and their cooperation sought in promptly improving or razing the structures. Direct contacts of this type may be more effective than following the normal regulatory process. If the direct approach does not yield results, the neighborhood association should contact the Demolition and Boarding Section of the City's Housing Department and request that the citation and hearing process be initiated. 10. Marketing Campaign As housing improvement programs take effect and greater stability is achieved in Smoketown, a marketing campaign should be considered. The marketing effort should be directed first of all towards savings and loans, mortgage companies and realtors, to acquaint them with the neighborhood's improved conditions and encourage them to do business in the area. Increased realtor activity and improved loan availability would strengthen the housing market and support efforts to increase occupancy. A second phase of the marketing effort would be directed toward potential residents. Efforts to improve the area's image and visibility would achieve this end (see Item 15 in part D. of the Land Use section). The neighborhood may want to consider joining with a group of financial and real estate firms that have concentrated their business efforts in the neighborhood for a joint-marketing-effort using newspaper advertisements. The neighborhood association would be responsible for coordinating both phases of the marketing program. 11. Co-Operative Housing Co-operative ownership of housing should be investigated in Smoke- town. Co-ops offer lower housing costs and the stability of home ownership to low-income persons. At the same time, they promote stability in the neighborhood by increasing owner-occupancy. If a Neighborhood Strategy Area is designated in Smoketown, the neighborhood association should contact the Plowshares Co-op Project and seek assistance in developing a housing co-op. Two to four-unit structures are suitable for conversion to co-ops. Using CDBG funds, Plowshares subsidizes the down payment for building purchase, and then aids the co-op residents in managing the building. E. PRIORITIES The implementation section of the plan identified actions to implement the housing recommendations for Smoketown. In this final section of the plan, the sequencing and relative importance of implementation measures is established. For each implementation action, the responsible agency and timeframe for starting the action are indicated. The priority of implementation actions is also indicated. Priorities for implementation measures were established by the Smoketown Task Force at its March 3, 1982, meeting. The implementation measures for housing recommendations are summarized in Table 111-5. Recommended actions have been organized into three groups according to their relative priority. Highest priority actions are those measures that are most significant for implementation of the housing plan. The priority rankings indicate the importance of the recommended action, rather than the time of occurrance. The "startup time" entries indicate when steps should be taken to bring the implementation action "on line". Immediate actions should be undertaken as soon as possible to implement the recommended action after adoption of the neighborhood plan by the Board of Aldermen. Short-range actions should be undertaken between 6 months and 18 months after the Board's adoption of the plan. Measures to implement medium-range actions should be taken in the period between 18 months and 3 years from the time of plan adoption. Long-range actions are proposed for implementation three or more years after the Plan is adopted. Long-range implementation measures should be evaluated in light of conditions existing in Smoketown three years after plan adoption, to determine the need for these actions. TABLE 111-5 HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION

Implementation Measure Responsible Agency Startup Period

1. Highest Priority Actions Housing Repair Program Project Warm, SCDA, Immediate to (weatherization, paint- CD Cabinet, New Short-range ing, tool library and Directions creation of a team to make repairs) Code Enforcement program Housing Dept. for the entire neighborhood Education Program to SCDA, New Directions, Short-range acquaint residents with Housing Dept., maintenance needs, Tenants Union available improvement programs and purpose of the code enforcement program Encouraging infill SCDA, City, non- Long-range residential construc- prof it housing tion corporation

2. High Priority Actions Create an urban renewal CD Cabinet, SCDA, Long-range plan for redevelopment Planning and Urban of limited areas Renewal Commissions, Aldermen Incentives for housing CD Cabinet, MISCO Short-range rehabilitation Improving occupancy of SCDA, Building Immediate housing Inspection Dept., Urban Land Program, Law Dept . Demolish unsafe housing SCDA, Housing Dept. Immediate

3. Medium Priority Actions Energy Conservation CAA, Environmental Immediate Alternatives Marketing available SCDA housing Establish a cooperative Plowshares, CD housing demonstration Cabinet JIU BROADWAY

Lolll.lll. .nd Jet=.r0n Coon- Housing Recommendations PI."",". Co~l..,on I -u BROADWAY

SMOKETOWN-JACKSON 2 O' 4, NEIGHBORHOOD --* - IV. Economic D.evelopment A. NEEDS ASSESSMENT 1. Summary of Findings -- The amount of neighborhood commercial space exceeds the needs of Smoketown residents based on the disposable income of the residents. However, the mix of neighborhood-retail uses is ~ inadequate. I - - Many of the neighborhood commercial uses, especially those I scattered throughout the residential areas, are dilapidated and lack a selection of goods. -- The consistently high rate of unemployment in the Smoketown neighborhood contrasts with the large employment centers in the surrounding neighborhoods. This situation emphasizes the need for job opportunities for less skilled workers and programs to improve job skills. -- Income levels of the neighborhood residents are very low, and the 1980 population has dropped to less than one-third of its 1950 level. -- There is a trend away from retail and general commercial firms toward services, wholesaling and manufacturing firms in the neighborhood.

2. Existing Conditions This section of the Plan will address the economic development aspects of the Smoketown neighborhood. This entails identification of the social and economic characteristics of the population, review of the existing commercial and industrial uses and a discussion of the neighborhood's employment opportunities. Based on this analysis, problems and opportunities related to economic development are identified. While the strength of any neighborhood's economy is based on conditions of the metropolitan area, unique opportunities and problems within Smoketown can be identified as a basis for strategies that respond to the neighborhood's needs. The commercial and industrial land-use categories are the land uses most related to economic development. These land uses (including vacant land, vacant structures and parking) occupied 36% of the land in Smoketown in 1981. Commercial and industrial land-use categories are broken down into sub-categories for purposes of analysis. Wholesale-commercial use is included in the industrial use analysis because of similarities in operational characteristics. a. Commercial Uses Commercial land uses (including vacant land, vacant commercial structures and parking) accounted for 22% of the land area in Smoketown. The commercial land-use category is divided into four functional classifications: neighborhood, regional, services and offices. A detailed description of the functional classification groups follows: Neighborhood Commercial Uses: Neighborhood-commercial uses are retail stores that serve neighborhood shopping need by providing non-durable, personal consumption items such as food, clothing, medicines, liquor, etc. Bars and restaurants are considered neighborhood-commercial uses also. In 1981 there were 33 of these uses occupying 3.6 acres of land. Neighborhood uses are scattered throughout the neighborhood, primarily on street corners and along Broadway. Figure IV-1 shows the location of neighborhood commercial uses in Smoketown. Regional Commercial Uses: Regional-commercial uses are retail stores that draw customers from a wide area and are not dependent on Smoketown residents alone for customer support. Regional-commercial uses deal primarily in durable goods: items which entail a major expenditure and have a long life, such as automobiles, furniture, and appliances. Stores offering specialty items such as jewelry or medical appliances are also considered regional commercial uses. Gasoline stations are included in the regional commercial category due to the regional drawing power they exhibit. In 1981, 28 regional commercial uses in Smoketown occupied 8.1 acres of land. The majority of these uses are concentrated on the northern edge of the neighborhood along Broadway and west of Preston Street. Figure IV-1 shows the location of regional-commercial uses in Smoketown. Commercial Services: Commercial-services includes uses such as barbers, beauticlans, dry cleaners, construction contractors, laundromats, banks and repair services. These.facilities are generally neighborhood-oriented but may also serve a larger region. Auto repair services and auto painting services are found in Smoke- town as well as contract construction firms. In 1981, the land-use survey found 64 commercial-service establishments occupying 25.2 acres of land. Figure IV-1 shows the location of these uses. This is the largest category of land in any of the commercial categories. Offices: The office category consists primarily of professional offices such as lawyers, architects and accountants, etc. Non-professional business offices which do not offer retail services are also part of this category. Doctors offices are not included in this category (Medical uses are a separate land-use category.) The 1981 survey of land use found 4 offices in Smoketown occupying 1.6 acres of land. b. Industry Industrial and wholesaling uses occupied 19 acres or 9.6% of the Smoketown neighborhood. The majority of these uses are located along the eastern fringe of the neighborhood. Some industrial and wholesale uses are scattered throughout the neighborhood as shown on Figure IV-1. For the purpose of this analysis, the following sub-categories of industrial land-use have been established. Light Industry: Light-industrial uses involve manufacturing processes which do not modify raw materials but rather involve assembly or fabrication of finished goods such as printing, beverage bot- tling, sheet metal fabrication, etc. Light-industrial processes do not have severe hazards associated with them nor do they create nuisances that make them incompatible with other land uses. Light industry was found to occupy 10.4 acres of land in 1981. Heavy Industry: Heavy-industrial uses involve refining raw materials, complex assembly processes or handling of hazardous materials such as paint and varnishes, chemicals or petroleum. Heavy industry occupies 4.2 acres of land in Smoketown and is found primarily along the neighborhood's eastern border. Wholesale Commercial: This category of uses is involved in wholesale distribution of finished products and materials. Although wholesaling is a commercial land-use, it has been included with industrial uses because of similarities in operating characteristics, site requirements, effects on surrounding land uses, and treatment under zoning regulations. Wholesale uses occup~ed4.4 acres of land in 1981. The majority of the wholesale uses are located west of Preston Street although a few uses are found along Broadway or east of Logan Street. Wholesale uses are common in the area owing to the proximity of the Central Business District and the Interstate Highway System. c. Condition of Commercial and Industrial Structures Commercial and industrial (non-residential) structures were classified as either standard, depreciating or substandard. In Smoketown 107 non-residential structures (49.5%) were classified as standard in 1981 when surveyed by Planning Commission staff. One hundred four (104) non-residential structures (48.1%) were classified as depreciating which indicates a need for rehabilitation. The remaining five non-residential structures were classified as substandard (2.3%) meaning they were either deteriorated or dilapidated and likely unfit for use. Figure 1-5 in the Land Use section of the Plan shows the location of non-residential structures and their condition. Depreciating structures were found to be scattered throughout the neighborhood. Standard non-residential structures were almost all located in the commercial corridor, industrial and mixed use areas. Vacancy rates for commercial and industrial structures were fairly high (13%) with 28 commercial and industrial structures vacant during the 1981 Planning Commission survey.

IV-3 d. Commercial/Industrial Potential The Smoketown neighborhood, like most of the core areas of the City of Louisville, is zoned for higher intensity uses. The acreage within each zoning district and its current use are shown in Table IV-1. The neighborhood's potential for additional commercial and industrial development is largely determined by the amount of vacant land. Conversion of developed land to other uses in not readily accomplished due to high costs and fragmented land ownership. The greatest amount of vacant land is zoned R-8 (13 acres). If built to the limits allowed by zoning district regulations, this area could support approximately 755 new dwelling units or about 1,887 persons at 2.5 persons per dwelling unit. Further, R-8 zoning allows professional offices and services uses including beauty shops, barber shops, etc. Construction of 755 new dwelling units in Smoketown would greatly increase the area's need for neighborhood commercial development (grocery, drug store, etc.). The second largest amount of vacant land by zoning district (6.4 acres) is zoned C-2. C-2 zoning allows a broad range of commercial uses and large scale structures. If the entire amount of land zoned C-2 were developed in single-story structures utilizing one-third of the site for building, about 92,000 square feet of floor space could be provided for businesses. Increased amounts of commercial floor space could be constructed using multi-story buildings and reducing the parking-to-structure ratio. The size of most of the vacant parcels, however, limits their development potential. Figure 1-2 in the Land Use section shows vacant sites in Smoketown. With the exception of the Hillerich and Bradsby site, only small-scale commercial development could be accommodated on existing vacant sites. There are only 2.6 acres of vacant industrially-zoned (M-2) in the Smoketown neighborhood. This land is divided among numerous parcels. The vacant acreage represents some potential for expansion but could not accommodate any significant new industrial development. Of the 34.5 acres zoned M-2 industrial, only 15.5 acres were used industrially. Heavy commercial uses which are permitted in the M-2 zone occupy much of the remaining acreage. Residential and commercial uses in the mixed-use area and in the commercial corridor account for the balance. 3. Demographic Background Demographic characteristics of Smoketown are discussed in detail in part A.3 of the Land Use section. Data that relates to economic development is summarized here. The Smoketown neighborhood has experienced a steady decline in total population and dwelling units since 1950. The population in Smoke- town dropped from 10,653 persons in 1950 to only 3,390 persons in 1980. The current population of Smoketown (1980) is less than one-third the population in 1950, (31.8%). The population loss can be attributed to displacement by Interstate-65 construction, commercial expansion, and demolition of unsound structures, in combination TABLE IV-1 LAND USE BY ZONING DISTRICT - SMOKETOWN

Existing Land Use Zoning Total Vacant Vacant Commercial Industrial District Acres Structures Acres Acres R-10 0 0 1 0 R- 8 13 3.3 3.8 2.8 M- 2 2.6 .60 9.6 15.5 C-1 .2 .4 .50 0 C-2 6.4 2.8 13.9 9.4 C-3 0 1.5 1 0

Total 202.5 22.2 8.6 29.8 27.7 with smaller household sizes and the general decline of the City's population. Table 1-5 in the Land Use section of the plan illustrates the recent changes. There was a higher elderly component of the population in Smoketown in 1970 (16.5%) than existed County-wide, where only about 9% of the population was age 65 or over. There was a slightly lower component of persons 18 years old or younger in Smoketown (35.2%) than existed County-wide (37.33%), but the dependency ratio for 1970 was still higher in Smoketown (51.7) than County-wide (46.3) due to the elderly population. The median composite income of all families and unrelated individuals in Smoketown was approximately $3,193 in 1969, 38.4% of the County median of $8,309. Per capita income in 1969 was $1,774 in Smoketown; this figure is 55.6% of the Jefferson County average ($3,189) and 59.8% of the City of Louisville average ($2,968). When considered separately both families and unrelated individuals had lower median incomes in 1969 ($4,446 and $1,660, respectively) than the County median ($9,819 and $2,317, respectively). Data on mean income and per capita income is presented in Appendix N. Forty-two percent of households in Smoketown were at or below the poverty level in 1970, over three times the County rate of 13.1%. Further, 46.6% of the total population was living below poverty level compared to 11.7% of the population County-wide. Twenty-one percent of the families in Smoketown were receiving welfare or public assistance in 1970. This is four times the County rate (5.2%), but amounts to less than half the number of households living below poverty level and thereby likely to be eligible for some form of assistance. This indicates a need for more information about the availability of welfare and eligibility requirements in Smoke town. The employment of residents of Smoketown was split evenly between blue-collar workers (39.2%) and service workers (37.1%) while a smaller percent, 23.7% (2,343) were considered white-collar employees. White-collar workers increased as a percent of the work force from 1960 to 1970 gaining 7.1% while the blue-collar and service employment categories split the loss. Labor force participation rates were 63.1% for men and 37.8% for women in Smoketown in 1970 and averaged 48.7% for both sexes. These rates are all lower than the County averages which were 79%, 43% and 60%, respectively.

4. Employment Smoketown is a mixed-use neighborhood adjacent to two large employment centers, the Central Business District and the Medical Center. Job opportunities in the Smoketown neighborhood result from expansion of these two employment centers as well as growth of businesses in the non-residential portions of the neighborhood.

IV- 6 Census Tract level data from 1973 (Table IV-2) indicates the numbers of jobs and mix of job opportunities in the Smoketown neighborhood and surrounding area. Only Census Tract 62 was entirely within the Smoketown neighborhood as is shown on Figure 1-6. Substantial amounts of Census Tract 63 and a lesser amount of Census Tract 61 employment lies outside the neighborhood boundaries. The total population of Census Tracts 61, 62, and 63 was 9,129 persons in 1970. By 1980 this had dropped to only 6,256 persons. In 1970, the labor-force participation rate was 50.7 for the three Census Tracts meaning that 4,627 persons were in the work force. If the labor force participation rate has remained constant (an opti- mistic assumption), the 1970 labor force would amount to 3,171 persons. In 1973, there were 6,432 persons employed in the three Census Tracts indicating that more jobs existed than persons available for work. However, unemployment in 1970 ranged from as high as 13.87% in Census Tract 61 to 3.94% in Census Tract 63. Census Tract 62 had an unemployment rate of 6.99% in 1970. Jefferson County's rate of unemployment was only 3.92% in 1970. Despite the large number of jobs in the area, 70% of Smoketown's population are living in Census Tract 62 where the unemployment rate was nearly twice the County rate. Nearly 53% of all jobs in the three Census Tracts were service jobs in 1973. This reflects two hospitals located east of the neighborhood in Census Tract 63, Kentucky Baptist Hospital and St. Anthony Hospital, which together employed nearly 2,200 persons in 1973. Employment in Smoketown (considered against the mix County-wide) is under-represented in manufacturing, transportation/comunications/- utilities (T.C.U.), retail trade and finance/insurance/real estate (F.I.R.E.) employment and over-represented in construction/mining and wholesale trade, and service employment. The mix of employment in 1973 and relatively high unemployment rate in 1970 indicate a poor matchup between jobs and skills. blanufac- turing employment was only 13.5% of the total jobs in 1973 in the three Census Tracts with most of the jobs in non-electrical machin- ery manufacture. W. M. Cissell Manufacturing Company located just west of the neighborhood at 831 South First Street is the largest single manufacturing employer (360 persons) in the vicinity. Appendix 0 provides a breakdown of manufacturing employment in Census Tracts 61, 62 and 63. The Smoketown neighborhood is centrally located and is close to the employment centers of the Central Business District and the Medical Center. Any discussion of employment opportunity in Smoketown should make note of the employment in these two areas. The Central Business District employs approximately 44,000 persons and the Medical Center attracts 12,000 employees and students to the area. Station Industrial Park will employ up to 3,000 persons when it is completed and should provide job opportunities to the Smoketown residents. In addition, the neighborhood's central location in the community and high level of transit service make jobs situated in

IV-7 TABLEIV-2: SMOKETOWN EMPLOYMENT BY CATEGORY, 1973

census Tract 61 62 63 Total Jefferson County Employment Category number percent number percent number percent number percent Number percent

Construction and Mining

Manufacturing

Transportation, Communica- tions and Utilities

Wholesale Trade

Retail Trade

Finance, Insurance and Real Estate

Services

Total other parts of the City and County accessible to Smoketown residents. 5. Commercial Supply and Demand Supply and demand analysis is used to determine the adequacy or need for additional commercial development. At the neighborhood level, demand for commercial use can only be determined for these uses classified as neighborhood-commercial uses. Other sub-categories can be considered from the viewpoint of supply within the neighborhood, but demand must be a regionally generated estimate. Some sense of neighborhood demand may be generated from resident surveys or from comparisons of income characteristics, spending patterns and estimated sales realized by existing facilities. a. Demand for Regional, Office and Service Commercial in the Smoketown Neighborhood. Demand for these three categories of commercial use is regionally determined. No assessment has been generated for the amount of land needed in these categories, nor has an assessment been made of the attributes that attract these types of commercial use. However, the land-use trends in the Smoketown neighborhood (especially in the northwest quadrant and along Broadway) have been away from the residential and neighborhood-oriented commercial use and to the more intensive regional service and office uses. Figure IV-1 shows the location of regional, service and office uses in the neighborhood. The existing zoning of vacant land and vacant neighborhood commercial structures reinforces the succession of land use in the neighborhood. There are 43.2 acres of C-2 commercially zoned land and 5.4 acres of C-3 commercially zoned land in Smoketown. The C-3 zoning district is the most intense commercial zone, generally only allowed in the Central Business District as it allows greater heights for buildings and does not require the provision of parking. The C-2 zone similarly allows more intensive commercial uses than the C-1 or C-N districts, and is more oriented to the service and regional commercial uses. There are only 1.5- acres of C-1 zoning in Smoketown. b. Supply and Demand for Neighborhood Commercial Use in Smoketown. Neighborhood commercial uses serve a limited area and the adequacy of supply can be analyzed based on the population and income characteristics of the neighborhood. Neighborhood-level commercial uses provide goods and services that residents of a neighborhood need on a daily or weekly basis. Neighborhood residents will normally spend a majority of their personal consumption expenditures in their immediate neighborhood if adequate commercial facilities exist. A list of neighborhood commercial establishments by type in Smoketown is shown in Appendix P. As this table shows, Smoketown does not have a wide variety of neighborhood-level commercial facilities. Further, there is no concentration of neighborhood-commercial uses that could be called a neighborhood business district. From the 1981 land-use survey and subsequent in-house analysis, the Planning Commission staff found 33 neighborhood commercial uses in Smoketown with approximately 46,825 square feet of sales area. Existug neighborhood-commercial uses have an estimated sales capacity of $5.5 million (see Appendix P); this estimate exceeds the disposable income of the neighborhood residents for non-durable goods (excluding gasoline) at $3.6 million as shown in Appendix Q. However, the mix of uses is inadequate because fifteen of the 33 establishments or 18,425 square feet of the sales area were liquor stores or bars.

The remaining 18 establishments include seven groceries with a $1.5 million estimated sales capacity and eight restaurants with an estimated $.8 million in sales. The balance of neighborhood commercial establishments in Smoketown consists of three second-hand stores. The neighborhood-commercial uses in Smoketown are widely scattered, commonly occupying street corners. The analysis performed to determine the adequacy of the neighborhood-commercial use in Smoketown is based on a comparison of estimated annual expenditures by neighborhood residents ($3.7 million) for personal consumption items to an estimate of the annual sales volumes ($5.5 million) of the existing stores in the neighborhood (see Appendix P). Wlth numerous vacant stores in the Smoketown neighborhood, it is not surprising that 149% of the residents' personal consumption expenditures could be captured by the existing, occupied neighborhood-retail establishments. Vacancies indicate that over-saturation of the neighborhood retail market exists, and this is supported by the analysis. Appendix R explains the methodology used to analyze the adequacy of neighborhood-commercial uses in Smoketwon. However, there is a minimum level of neighborhood-commercial shopping areas called the threshold, below which persons seeking a particular consumer good will go elsewhere because of a lack of selection or variety. Smoketown's low-income, declining population does not generate enough commercial demand to support the threshold level of neighborhood use. To say that the minimal amount of neighborhood-commercial existing in the neighborhood is adequate is only true in so far as it is a greater amount than the population can support. However, neither the mix nor the quality of the existing use approaches the threshold level of neighborhood-commer- cia1 use necessary for a viable neighborhood business district; thus, residents probably shop elsewhere when convenient. New entry by a neighborhood-commercial use would be very difficult in a market such as exists in Smoketown. The new uses that have been constructed during the recent past have all been along Broad- way, including three restaurants and a convenience grocery. These businesses have sought to capitalize on the work traffic rather than the needs of Smoketown residents, although residents may have benefited. The building condition of neighborhood-commercial uses inside the Smoketown neighborhood is generally very poor. Existing commercial structures (generally small, two-story structures that lack parking) do not conform to modern merchandising practices. It is probable that a new facility could only establish itself in the area in improved facilities and at the expense of existing facilities. Further, estimates of demand assume a very general consumption pattern which may overestimate or underestimate actual expenditures. In Smoketown the lower income persons probably spend a greater percentage of their income on food and rent and less for other items. It, therefore, remains for the retailer to decide whether there is room for additional stores offering a new product or better selection in a newer facility. The low rents inside the Smoketown neighborhood could make it an attractive area for new businesses to establish themselves. However, at this time the most likely location for new neighborhood commercial uses would continue to be along Broadway where work traffic, proximity to Phoenix Hill and access to other neighborhoods increase the number of available customers. The population loss over the past three decades does little to encourage new neighborhood-commercial uses inside Smoketown. The probable future is one in which increasing amounts of regional and service commercial drawing on the proximity of the Central Business District and Medical Center replace the vacant commercial that once housed neighborhood-level commercial uses in the interior of Smoketown. A survey of neighborhood concerns conducted with the Smoketown Community Development Association on August 10, 1981, supported the finding that the available shopping opportunities were inadequate. Participants indicated that commercial outlets (i-e., shopping centers, drug stores) and a laundromat were needed in the Smoketown neighborhood. A lack of jobs was also considered a high priority problem relating to economic development. Elderly transportation opportunities were considered to be inadequate for medical and shopping trips in Smoketown, and a LARC route was suggested. The residents indicated that there were too many liquor stores in the neighborhood. A summary of this survey is included as Appendix E. The results of this survey are not necessarily representative of the total neighborhood's viewpoint. However, the nominal group session does provide an indication of the needs of Smoketown residents. Finally any discussion of neighborhood-level shopping in the Smoke- town neighborhood must include a brief statement about shopping areas in the surrounding neighborhoods. First, the Central Business District (CBD) exerts tremendous influence on any surrounding neighborhood's shopping districts as it is impossible for it to compete with the variety of goods and services offered in the CBD. This has the greatest impact on neighborhoods that are losing population, such as Smoketown. The Haymarket (also known as the Louisville Produce Plaza) meets much of the grocery needs of the neighborhoods east of the Central Business District, and has some clothing and numerous shoe outlets nearby. Smoketown residents probably frequent this shopping area for food and other consumer

IV-11 goods. Old Louisville has a small, neighborhood shopping district which may draw Smoketown residents although access by bus would require a transfer unlike access to the Haymarket. Another area accessible by bus without transfer and near Smoketown residents is the Bardstown Road corridor, including the Mid-City Mall. Shelby Park neighborhood (immediately south of Smoketown) has two small shopping areas which can almost be considered neighborhood shopping districts; these can be reached by bus without a transfer from Smoketown. The Shelby Park Neighborhood Plan has proposed a 60,000 square-foot neighborhood shopping center that would enhance the Smoketown neighborhood's commercial opportunities. 6. Smoketown Neighborhood Business Survey In August of 1981, the Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission sent survey forms to all businesses located in the Smoketown neighborhood , a total of 146 firms. Fifty-seven responses were received, a 39% return rate. Respondents characterized their operations as wholesale (23 responses), retail (22 responses), service (14 responses), manufacturing (9 responses) and communications (1 response). The survey response was primarily from region serving and service commercial uses. Auto-related and construction- related businesses (15 each) were the dominant types of business enterprise in the survey response. The neighborhood-level commercial uses replying to the survey included five liquor stores/bars and one restaurant. The total employment by survey respondents was 775 persons or an average of 16 full-time employees per firm. The business community in Smoketown as portrayed by the survey response, is highly stable. Respondents indicated overwhelmingly that they intended to remain in the neighborhood for the next five years. Fifty of the 57 respondents stated that they intended to stay, and the remaining seven were unsure. The businesses engaged in industrial warehousing or wholesale operations indicated strongly (73%) that their current location offered benefits because of its proximity to related businesses and services. Only five of 32 such businesses indicated they would anticipate moving in the next five years with no clear consensus as to the type of site they would choose. This stability may result from favorable business conditions. Excluding the effect of inflation, 53% of the firms surveyed felt that their business had increased its sales volume over the past 5 years, and only 22.8% lost business while business for the remainder had stayed about the same. Most (61.4%) of the respondents had done business in the neighborhood for over 10 years. None of the respondents had been in the neighborhood for less than a year, 17 had been there for between one and four years, and the remaining five for five to nine years. There were more owners (61.4%) than renters (38.6%) that responded to the survey. Over half of the respondents (56%) indicated they had made physical improvements to their business during the last five years, but fewer (24.6%) planned improvements during the next five years. However,

1v- 12 42% were unsure about whether they would make improvements durlng the next five years, and only 33.3% definitely stated that they would not be making any improvements. Slightly over half of the respondents replied they would be hiring new employees at their Smoketown business, averaging 4.2 persons per business for a total of 79 new jobs. Currently, only about 10% of the employees of responding businesses lived in the Smoketown neighborhood. The survey sought to identify problems related to being located in Smoketown. Crime is a major problem in the neighborhood. Twenty four of the respondents (42%) indicated they had been subjected to major or repeated vandalism. The respondents experienced over 170 burglaries during the last five years. Inadequate police protection was cited by seven respondents. Low-income residents, a high percentage of renters, and the area's negative image in the public eye were other problems mentioned. When asked to mention physical improvements needed in the neighborhood, the respondents cited that clean-up of trash, weeds and the general appearance of the neighborhood (20 responses) and improving the housing conditions in the area (14 responses) were important to improving the business climate. A need for more commercial and industrial development, improved lighting and traffic, and parking problems were also mentioned by the respondents.

Off-street parking was the greatest transportation related problem I they experienced, affecting 17% of the total respondents, followed by a lack of off-street loading/unloading space for trucks delivering supplies, etc. (10.5%) or access for trucks (8.8%). The survey appears to have represented an accurate sample of the variety of businesses, and concerns of those businesses, in the Smoketown neighborhood. The businesses are there to stay and are a positive element for the neighborhood's future. The problems of crime and neighborhood conditions could provide a focus for resident and business groups to organize redevelopment efforts around in the future. 7. Problems and Opportunities This subsection of the plan identifies problems and opportunities for economic development in Smoketown. This analysis is based on data previously presented and on surveys of neighborhood residents I and businesses. I The major reason for decline of neighborhood-level commercial use in the Smoketown neighborhood is the lack of support population and the low-income status of the remaining population. Since 1950 population has declined by almost 70%; further the 1970 per capita income was only 60% of the City-wide figure. The poor condition of the vacant commercial structures discourages reuse by other non-neighborhood commercial uses. Modern merchandising methods require space which is not available in most of the existing commercial structures, nor do the narrow lots allow for the parking needs. The small lot sizes require lot assembly before a more modern facility can be constructed with on-site parking. The difficulty of obtaining land is compounded when deals must be arranged with multiple owners. Further, some of the vacant buildings and land in this neighborhood are reportedly owned by real estate speculators who foresee long-term increases in value of otherwise low-value property from the growth of Downtown and expansion of the Medical Center complex. These property owners are not interested in maintaining their holdings or contributing to Smoketown's revitalization. All of these factors have resulted in a lack of commercial services in Smoketown. The residents do not have a grocery, drug store or laundromat facility that is considered adequate in size and quality. The existing shopping facilities are scattered rather than concentrated so as to improve their drawing power. Liquor stores and bars are over-represented. There has been a lack of public sector involvement in Smoketown, and private sector investment has been lacking in some portions of the neighborhood. Competition among neighborhoods for public funds and private investment generally has not favored Smoketown. The lack of space for commercial and industrial expansion may also limit economic development in the area. The area's large structures, however, offer low-cost space for a variety of businesses and should be considered an important resource. The lack of vacant nonresidential sites is a positive indication of the viability of commercial and industrial enterprises. The area's high crime rate is a problem that needs to be addressed to improve Smoketown's image as a place to do business. The area's housing stock and general appearance also are in need of improvement. Smoketown's proximity to Downtown and the Medical Center are inpor- tant opportunities for economic development. The area offers lower cost locations within a very short distance of these growth centers. The regional and service-commercial uses located west of Preston Street and along Broadway are a result of the neighborhood's locational advantages, and further development of this type can be expected. The Phoenix Hill redevelopment project should have a positive effect on Smoketown's economic development picture by I providing additional support population for the proposed shopping I I development along Broadway. 8. Government and Non-Government Actions I I I While there has been an abundance of programs aimed toward allevi- ating the problems which exist in older neighborhoods in the Central I Louisville area, little has been done under these programs in the Smoketown neighborhood. The Overall Economic Development Program (OEDP) was one of the initial concerted efforts to ldentify the special needs of inner-city neighborhoods in Louisville, and set forth goals and objectives of the program. Long-range strategies were identified in the subsequent report Economic Development Strateqies (Nathan Barnes and Associates, 1974) which recommended CDBG and General Fund dollars be used as the primary sources of assistance for implementation. The Eocus of these strategies were for the "Special Impact Area" (SIA) as designated by the Economxc Development Administration (EDA) in accordance with the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965,(P.L. 93-423). The SIA included Louisville's downtown and its surrounding older neighborhoods, including Smoketown, as part of the Jackson sub-area. A shopping center with 75,000 square feet of floor space was recommended for the Jackson sub-area in the southern portlon of the area outside the Smoketown neighborhood in Shelby Park. To date, thxs proposal has not been funded. There have been no public monies for economic development spent in the Smoketown neighborhood recently. The main reason for this is that Smoketown has not been designated a neighborhood strategy area (NSA) eligible for housing rehabilitation and neighborhood redevelopment funding. This has severely hampered the neighborhood's improvement. Financing is available under programs of the Small Business Administration (SBA); however, leveraging SBA funds with CDBG monies is much more effective in declining neighborhoods. Without additional financial assistance, many small businesses cannot qualify for SBA loans. The commercial/industrial uses in Smoketown can draw on the Louisville Economic Development Corpora- tion (LEDCO) and the Minority Venture Capital Corporation (MVCC) for assistance under the City Neighborhood Business Revitalization ! Program. This program is intended to provide loans for industrial i job expansion, and for the revitalization of neighborhood strips (including rehabilitation of existing uses and construction of new facilities), and to provide venture capital for new business enterprises, especially those which are minority owned. However, the amount of money available under these programs for areas outside the NSA's is restricted. No funds from'these sources have been spent in Smoketown. 11 11 BROADWAY

I ! I Commercial and Industrial Land -u BROADWAY

~ ~ Source: Louisville and Jefferson Countv Appendix CONTENTS Appendix A Age Profile 1950-1980 B Household Composition 1970-1980 C Employment and Income 1950-1980 D Crime Rates 1974 E Results of Problem Identification Session F Traffic Volumes G Transit Service H Truck Traffic Volumes J Off-Street Parking Requirements X Transit Ridership--1979 L Transit Passengers per Trip fi1 Average and Median Housing Prices N 1970 Economic and Demographic Character- istics of Smoketown Manufacturing Employment, 1973 Neighborhood Commercial Sales Capacity Estimate Estimated Personal Consumption Expenditures Neighborhood Retail Sales Estimate Documentation of Citizen and Agency Review Processes APPENDIX A; AGE PROFlLE 1950-1970, SMORETOWN

Census Tract 61 pt. 62 pt. 63 pt. Total 18 and under 65 and over 18 and under 65 and over 18 and under b5 and over 18 and under 65 and over Year Y % Y 0 Y % Y % Y 6 I % t % Y %

'This is based on Census Tract level rates applied to the actual porLion of the Census Tract population within the Smoketown neighborhood.

Source: 1950, 1960, 1970 Census of Population and Housing: Louisville KY.-1ND.. U.S. Department of Commerce; Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission. APPENDIX 8: HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION 1970

Census Tract 61 pt 62 pt 63 pt. Total 1970 1970 1970 1970 Y %

One person Households 123 37.4 436 33.3 4 6 23.4

Families with Femaie Head 46 (22.3) 385 45.9 32 (21.2) occupied Housing units 329 100.0 1,308 100.0 197 100.0

Owner Occupied Housing Units 5 2 15.9 309 23.6 6 9 35.0

Renter Occupied Housing Units 277 84.2 . 999 76.4 128 65.0 Families (206) 100.0 839 100.0 (151) 100.0

Families with Children under age 18 (91) (42.2) 429 51.1 (68) (45.01

(estimate)

Source: 1970 Census of Population and Housing: T.ouisville, KY-IND., U. S. Department of Commerce. APPENDIX C: EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME. 1950-1980

20.0% 11.111 ..- It. I\ 11.1. 70.65%

& Dl-o Collar Workccr 54.4,

Persons 25 and over a 111911 SI.ll

Feranvr 25 and clvrr \ Drnfnllls 74.51 82.91 71.1. 82.111 Il4. '8%

I i*

2 1949 data. EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME 1950 - 1980 Area/Census Tract City of Louisville Indicator Years = 1950 1960 1970 -1980 Percent Unemployed 4.7 37 4.6 M F M F M F M F Labor Force Participation Rate 82.9 35.2 79.0 36.8 74.5 43.3 Labor Force Participation Rate 57.5 56.2 56.8

% White Collar Workers

% Blue Collar Workers

% Service Workers 9.1 13.3 15.4 Mean Family Income - - $9980 Median Family Income - $5280 $8564 Mean Unrelated Indiv. Inc. - - $3817 Median Unrelated Individual Income - - $2713 Median Income of All Families and Unrelated Individuals $2723 $4454 $6614 P.C.Est. Per Capita Income - - $2968 $7659 Persons Age 25 and Over % High School Graduates 29.9 32.1 40.9

Persons Age 25 and Over % High School Dropouts 68.4 67.9 59.1 Median School Years Completed 8.9 9.3 10.7 APPENDIX D CRIME RATES 1974, 1980 -- SMOKETOWN

SMOKETOWN Census Tract 61 pt 62 pt 63 pt. Total (Weighted Average) Indicator Homocide Rate per 100,000 Robbery Rate per 100,000 Rape Rate per 100,000 Burglary Rate per 100.000 Major Crime Rate per 100,000

Source: Urban Indicatord, Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission. 1975. APPENDIX E Results of Problem Identification Session Smoketown Community Development Association August 10, 1981 A problem identification session using a "nominal group" technique was conducted with the Smoketown Community Develop- ment Association. Two separate groups participated in this exercise; the results from each group are presented s iparately. The top ten problems and needs are listed in descending order of importance, followed by an un-ranked listing of problems. Following the nominal group sessions, all the participants mentioned specific problems by topic (Land Use, Truck Traffic, etc.) .

Group 1 1. Lack of commercial outlets - no shopping center, drug store, laundromat. 2. Lack of jobs. 2. Not enough police protection - they need to be seen more often. 3. Cars run stop signs at Clay and Lampton, accidents, fast traffic, stop signs not visible. 4. Lack of housing redevelopment and no clearance of dilapidated structures. 4. Abandoned houses - vagrants, used for storage for stolen property. 5. Traffic too fast on Hancock - kids on street. 6. Weeds and bad sidewalks, especially.in Sheppard Square, standing water on walks long after rain. 6. Traffic heavy at Hancock and Jacob, lots of children cross there. Some people have been hit. Through traffic doesn't stop on Hancock, Clay, Lampton. 6. Handicapped accessibility problems, no sidewalk ramps, sidewalks in disrepair, phones not accessible, no building in the area accessible to the handicapped (stores, community center).

Other concerns: Abandoned house between Clay and Finzer - children play in it. Dirty streets, unkept vacant lots, weeds. Double parking and loud radios - cars block traffic. Visiting in the street. Dumping of trash and junk on vacant lots. Children crossing street between two parks - across Hancock between projects. Inadequate transportation for elderly and handicapped for medical and shopping trips. Lack of publicity on land use changes, zoning changes. Police not responsive - long procedure. Respond to drug calls, shootings, etc., but not to individuals - specific calls. No day care in Smoketown. Partially demolished houses.

Group 2 1. Boarded up houses are eyesores. 2. Traffic light needed at Clay and Lampton, Hancock and Lampton (visibility problems at intersection, accidents, double parking ) . 3. Renovation of houses. 4. Needjobs. 5. Elderly don't have means to get to the store. 6. Meed LARC route for elderly. 7. More intensive rodent control. 7. Hi~esomeone to look after elderly.

8. Absence of a laundromat. 8. No decent shopping center just "mom and pop" stores.

8. Sidewalk marking for children on Clay and Hancock Streets (crosswalks).

Other concerns: Traffic moves too fast through housing project. Better maintenance of housing projects (doors, screens, grounds, etc . . Better trash pickup throughout neighborhood. Junk, weeds, rats, etc., in vacant lots. Problems of building on vacant lots (e-g., commercial zoning) Boarded up houses dangerous to health. Need to clean sewers and streets (e.g., sewers stopped up causing water to pond in yards). Grounds of housing project in poor condition (lack of grass, greenery) . Need library in Smoketown. Brighter street lights needed. Sidewalk ramps at curbs for handicapped. Need more police protection. Need parking spaces reserved for handicapped by signs.

Specific Problems Identified by the SCDA as a whole: LAND USE 1. 805 Clay Street - animal shelter. 2. Vacant car lots on Broadway - adjacent to residential use. 3. Too many liquor stores. TRUCK TRAFFIC - just going through the neighborhood, few deliveries. 1. Shelby Jackson Hancock - parking on both sides 2. When trucks are delivering at Hancock and Lampton - they block traffic. Also at Hancock and Jacob - happens wherever there is a liquor store or grocery store - no loading zones. STREETS AND SIDEWALKS - CONDITION 1. Never cleaned. 2. Pinzer - Jackson to Shelby - poor repair of street. 3. 728 Spradling Court - sidewalk needs repair. 4. 700 block of Roselane - grass has grown through sidewalk. 5. No trimming of tall grass on sidewalks. 6. No street salting in Smoketown after snow.

7. Elderly and handicapped TARC services are inadequate. RECREATION 1. Not enough tot lots. 2. Community Center does not respond to many recreation needs - very few sports offered, i.e. boxing, skating. 3. Lack of structured recreation programs - teams, group sports. APPENDI~F: TRAFFIC VOLUMES - SMOKETOWN - 25,100-80,000

-Jacob Street east of -Breckinridge Street between -Breckinridge Street east -Broadway east of Brook Rrook Street Clav and Hancock Streets of Brook Street Street (1.300 vehicles per (5453 vehicles per day) (10,874 vehicles per day) East West Total day) (14,849) (10,449) (25.800) -- -Jackson Street south -Campbell Street north of -Brook Street south of -Broadway east of Preston of Broadway of Broadway Broadway Street (3819) (5578) (17,402) East West Total ------C1131U~~fi) -Floyd Street south -Shelby Street north of -Brook Street north of -Broadway east of Clay of Jacob Street Lampton Street Broadwav Street (4142) (6073) (18,819) East West Total (19,161) (11,290) (30.45) -Fjnzer Street east of -Preston Street south of -Broadway east of Campbell -Interstate 65 over Breck- Loqan Street I Broadwav I Street inridge Street west Total North South Total -563) (2-) .------(34,514) (27,246) (77,6941 -Rrook Street south of -Shelby Street south of -Broadway between Logan Kentucky Street Rroadwav and Shelbv Streets I I , (A9351 (6491) West Total

-Preston Street south -Kentucky Street east of of Kentucky Street Brook Street (5158) (6647) ------Campbell Street soutt -Shelby Street north of of Broadway Broadway (5210) (6823) ------Preston Street south of Breckinridqe Street (521 1)

Source: City of Louisville "Vehicle Volume Counts", Department of Traffic Engineering APPEP~DIXG: TRANSIT SERVICE

ROUTE MUMBER/NAME SERVICE FREQUENCY IIOURS OF OPERATION

43 POPLAR LEVEL 29 blinutes (6:30-8:30 A.M.) Peak WEEKDAYS 88 Minutes (8:30 A.M.-3:30 P.14.) Base (5:15 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. 33 Minutes (3:30-5:30 P.M.) P.M. Peak

77 Minutes (Morning) SATURDAY 72 Minutes (Afternoon) (7:52 a.m.-6:50 p.m.)

11 PORTLAND-SHELBY 20 Minutes (6:30-8:30 A.M.) WEEKDAYS 45 Minutes (8:30-3:30 P.M.) (4:44 a.m.-12:37 a.m.) 31 Minutes (3:30-5:30 P.M.) 60 Minutes (After 5:30 P.M.) Night

45 Minutes (Morning) - Saturday SATURDAY 60 Minutes (Evening) (4:43 a.m.-12:35 a.m.)

72 Minutes (Morning) - Sunday SUNDAY 65 Minutes (Evening) 5:00 a.m.-12:35 a.m.)

18 PRESTON-18TH 14 Minutes (6:30-8:30 A.M.) STREET 20 Minutes (8:30-3:30 P.M.) 14 Minutes (3:30-5:30 P.M.) 38 Minutes (after 5:30 P.M.)

30' 1,Iinutes (Morning) SATURDAY 32 llinutes (Afternoon) (4:49 a.m.-1:13 a.m.) 29 Minutes (Evening) Saturday 49 blinutes (Night)

46 Minutes (I'lorning) SUNDAY 50 Minutes (Afternoon) 4:34 a.m.-12:40 a.m.) 53 Minutes (Evenirlg) Sunday 49 Minutes (Night)

21 CHESTNUT STREUT 15 Plinutes (6:30-8:30 A.M.) WEEKDAYS 29 blinutes (8:30-3:30 P.M.) (5:11 a.m.-1:Ol a.m.) 16 Minutes (3:30-5:30 P.M.) 69 Minutes (After 5:30 P.N.) 30 Minutes (Clorning) SATURDAY (5:26 a.m.-12:55 a.m.)

30 14inutes (Afternoon) SUNDAY 30 Minutes (Evening) Saturday (5:26 a.m.-12:55 a.m.) 69 Minutes (Night)

45 Minutes (Plorning) 45 llinutes (Afternoon) 45 Minutes (Evening) 69 llinutes (Night) Sunday

23 BROADWAY 6 Minutes WEEKDAYS 13 Minutes (4:04 a.m.-1:51 a.m.) 5 Minutes 56 Minutes SATURDAY (4:01 a.m.-1:48 a.m.)

20 Minutes (Morning) SUNDAY 20 Minutes (Afternoon) (5:07 a.m.-12:37 a.m.) 20 Minutes (Evening) Saturday 20 Minutes (Night)

35 Minutes (Morning) 35 Minutes (Afternoon) 35 Minutes (Evening) 35 Minutes (Evening) Sunday (Night)

Source: TARC 1981

APPENDIX J OFF STREET PARKING REGULATIONS DWELLINGS, ONE AND TWO-FAMILY: One space for each dwelling unit on the premises: DWELLINGS, ONE FAMILY ATTACHED, ONE-FAMILY SEMI-DETACHED, AND MULTIPLE-FAMILY: One space for each dwelling unit. Efficiency or no bedroom apartments may provide one space to each three units; HOTELS, ROOMING, BOARDING, AND LODGING HOUSES: One space for each three sleeping rooms or three individual suites of rooms; MOTELS AND TOURIST HOMES: One space for each sleeping room or individual suite of rooms on the premises; AUDITORIUMS, CHURCHES, TEMPLES, GYMNASIUMS, ARENAS, STADIUb!S, AND OTHER PLACES OF PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ASSEMBLY: Where permanent seats are installed, one parking space for each five seats; where no permanent seats are provided, one parking space for each 35 square feet of floor area; EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE: Ten spaces for each classroom or the auditorium requirements, whichever results in the greater number of spaces; ELEMENTARY AND HIGH SCHOOLS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE: Three spaces for each classroom or the auditoriumrequirements, whichever results in the greater number of spaces; : HOSPITALS: Two spaces for each five beds; DAY CARE CENTERS, DAY NURSERIES, KINDERGARTENS AND NURSERY SCHOOLS: One parking space shall be provided for each member of day care center staff. An on-site area shall be provided where passengers may safely exit automobiles and enter the building and vice versa. ASYLUMS, INSTITUTIONS, AND HOME FOR AGED, CONVALESCENTS, ORPHANS, OR INDIGENTS: One space for each twelve beds; LIBRARIES, MUSEUMS, AND ART GALLERIES: Ten spaces, plus one additional space for each 300 square feet of floor area in excess of 1,000 square feet; PRIVATE CLUBS, FRATERNITIES, SORORITIES, AND LODGES: Two spaces for each three sleeping rooms or three individual suites of rooms, or one space for each 35 square feet of floor area used for meeting rooms, whichever results in the greater number of spaces; BOWLING ALLEYS: Four parking spaces for each alley; CLINICS AND OFFICES FOR HUMAN MEDICAL CARE AND TREATMENT: One space for each 200 square feet of floor area; FUNERAL HOMES: Fifteen spaces, plus five spaces for each room in excess of three which can be used as a parlor or chapel. Drives and parking areas shall be surfaced with a hard and durable material and properly drained. Parking areas shall not occupy any required front or side yard. OFFICES AND OFFICE BUILDINGS: One space for each 400 square feet of floor area on the ground floor, and one space for each 500 square feet of floor area on other floors, with a minimum of three spaces; RESTAURANTS, DANCE HALLS, NIGHT CLUBS, SKATING RINKS, AND OTHER SIMILAR ESTABLISHMENTS, USED FOR AECREATION OR AMUSEMENT OR FOR SERVING OF MEALS OR DRINKS: One space for each 100 square feet of floor area; RETAIL STORES, PERSONAL-SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS, WHOLESALE DISTRI- BUTING ESTABLISHMENTS: One space for each 200 square feet of floor area in building, with a minimum of three spaces. OPEN AIR USES, INCLUDING BUILDING MATERIAL SALES, COAL YARDS, USED CAR LOTS, USED MATERIALS, AND MARKETS: One space for each 1,500 square feet of lot area; BANKS AND POST OFFICES: Ten spaces plus one additional space for each 300 square feet of floor area in excess of 1,000 square feet; INDUSTRIAL, MANUFACTURING, WAREHOUSE AND STORAGE USES: Employee parking of one space per one and one-half employees based upon maximum combined employment count of main plus second shift, visitor parking of one space per twenty-five employees on main shift and one space'for each company owned or leased truck, passenger car or other wheeled vehicle usually based at the premises; Source: Zoning District Regulations, Jefferson County, Ky., Section 111. APPENDIX K

TRANSIT RIDERSHIP - 1979

-ROUTE TOTAL PASSENGERS PER WEEK PERCENT OF TOTAL SYSTEM 11-Portland 6,252 1.8

11-Shelby 3,959 1.1

18-18th Street 18,774 5.3

18-Preston 13,141 3.7

23-Broadway (W) 30,093 8.5

23-Broadway (E) 31,591 8.4

43-Poplar Level 3,560 1.0

Source: TARC, 1979 APPENDIX L

TRANSIT PASSENGERS PER TRIP FOR A 24 HOUR PERIOD - 1979

-ROUTE PASSENGERS TRIPS PASSENGERS PER TRIP 11-Portland 1,157 3 6 32.1 11-Shelby 725 3 6 20.1 18-18th Street 3,246 63 51.5 18-Preston 2,343 56 41.8

23-Broadway (CJ) 5,213 109 47.8 23-Broadway (E) 5,734 109 52.6 43-Poplar Level 674 24 28.1 21-Chestnut (W) 1,826 48 38.0 21-Chestnut (E) 1,445 48 30.0

Source: TARC, 1979 APPEND= M: AVERAGE AND MEDIAN HOUSING PRICES Average Price 1970 Median 1970 Med. Hsg. 1977 Median S.F.--1977 Hsg. Value Inflated to Housing 1977 Dollars Value

Smoketown 7,431 7,100 10,100 5,400 City of Louisville 21,661 12,500 17,750 18,400

Source: University of Louisville Urban Studies Center Housing in Louisville, The Problems of Disinvestment, 1978. APPENDIX N: 1970 ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF SMOKETOWN

Mean Unrelated Mean Total 1969 Per Capita Census Tract Families Income Individuals Income Population Income

61 203 $ 5,753 272 $2,283 1,082 $1,653.27 62 834 4,588 544 2,171 3,551 1,410.14 63 1,134 7,286 540 2,110 4,496 2,091.13

Total of Census Tracts Jefferson County Totals 177,015

Louisville Totals

Source: 1970 Census of Population and Housing: Louisville, Ky.-Ind., U.S. Department of Commerce. APPENDIX 0

MANUFACTURIIJG EMPLOYI'IENT IN SMOKETOWN, 1973 Census Tract

S.I.C. Industry Group 6 1 62 Total

20 Food and Kindred 6 4 16 80

2 3 Apparel 0 36 3 6

3 2 Stone, Clay and Glass 407 0 487

35 ' Plachinery Non-Electric 0 0 12

38 Instruments and Related 0 0 12

3 9 blisc. Manufacturing 0 215 215

- - Total MFG 471 267 867

Source: KY Department of Human Resources data allocated to Census Tracts by KIPDA, 1974. APENDIX P: NEIGHBORI3OOD COMMERCIAL SALES CAPACITY ESTIMATE (1981) -- SMOKETOWN

1 (ESt. Sales Per Annual SLUC Number of Total Sales Area Square Foot Sales Code Type of Commercial Establishments (Square Feet) of Floor Area Estimate

5410 Grocery 7 5810.1 Restaurant 5 5810.2 Fast Food Restaurnat 3 5820 Bar 9

5920 Liquor 6 5932 Second Hand Store 3

'see Appendix R

Source: Planning Commission Survey, 1981. APPENDIX Q: ESTIMATED PERSONAL CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURES (lgaO)

Total Durable Goods Non-Durable Goods Services Personal Furniture Census Consumption Motor Vehicles and Houehold Tract Expenditure Total and Parts Equipment Total Food Clothing Gasoline Total

61 (part) $ 1,685,790 $ 229,267 $ 97,776 $ 91,033 $ 674,316 $ 333,786 $106,205 $ 85,975 $ 783,892

63 (part) $ 1,833,072 $ 249,298 $106,318 $ 98,986 $ 733,229 $ 362,948 $115,484 $93,487 $852,378

Total $10,478,076 $1,425,018 $607,728 $565,816 $4,191,230 $2,074,659 $660,119 $534,382 $4,872,305

Notes: Categories may include expenditures under totals not listed separately. For an explanation of the estimates of expenditure by retail classification refer to Appendix R : Growth In Income. Totals of columns may not add up exactly due to rounding.

Source: Planning Commission and Economic Indicators (April 1980). APPENDIX Q (continued)

TABLE B: DERIVATION OF PERSONAL CONSUMPTION ESTIMATES

1980* Per Capita Income*" Personal Consumption Expenditure Tract Population (PCI) 1980 Per Capita*** Total

61 (part) 506 $4,266 $ 3,332 $ 1,685,790

63 (part) 435 $5,396 $ 4,214 $ 1,833,072

TOTAL 3,390 $3958 $ 3,091 $10,478,076 source:*Actual 1980 population from the 1980 Census P.L.94-171 Counts. ** 1969 Per Capita Income (See i.yjpndixN) with 9% annual inflation as explained in Appendix III. *** Personal consumption expenditure has averaged 78.094% of PC1 nationwide from 1972-1979: Economic Indicators (April, 1980) APPENDIX R

NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL SALES ESTIMATES 1 There were 5,041 persons in Smoketown in 1970. By 1980 the popu- I lation had dropped to 3,390 persons. The following tables indicate

the range of total personal consumption expenditure by Census Tract I that would have occurred if growth in personal income had been consistent for the residents of Smoketown with increases realized by the total county population. This amounted to a 9% compounded per annum increase in Per Capita Income (PCI) (resulting from real growth in income, decreased family/household size and inflation) from 1969 to 1980. Table A illustrates the 1970 census character- ,, , istics of the census tracts in Smoketown neighborhood used for the base PCI. Table B shows the 1980 population by Census Tract and the 1980 estimated PC1 used for Personal Consumption Expenditure estimates. Table C converts the total Personal consumption Expenditure estimate into expected expenditures by retail classification which ~. is used to compare to the estimated sales by neighborhood retail establishments (non-durable goods expenditure excluding gasoline). GROWTH IN INCOME.

Per capita Personal Consumption Expenditures (in current dollars) from the April 1980 Economic Indicators report (page 6) shows the annual per capita expenditure for personal consumption has increased from $5,585 in 1977 to $7,368 for 1980 (first quarter annualized) or an increase of 31.9%. Similarly Personal Income per capita increased from $7,086 in 1977 to $9,273 (first quarter annualized) in 1980 an increase of 30.9% indicating that growth in expenditures has outstripped income growth. At the same time tax and non-tax payments have increased from 14.8% of the net per capita income to 15.5% and savings have declined from 4.24% of net personal income to 2.86%.

Real growth in per capita personal consumption expenditures from 1977 to 1980 has only been about 6.62% when constant 1972 dollars are used while real growth in per capita Lncome was 7.24% inrreasiiaq rlfm $3,937 in 1977 to $4,222 ia 1980, (in 1972 dollari) .l

The category of personal consumption expenditures has also been shifting. Table 9 below shows the shifts in Personal Consumption Expenditures for the United States 1969 - 1980 (first quarter). The main long term trend is in the increasing amount of expenditure for services. Otherwise, two short term shifts are important.

One, the recent shift in oil prices has increased drastically the percent of consumer expenditure for :his element, and second, consumers seem to be taking up the burden of sosoline costs by directly reducing expenditures for other durable and nondurable goods. This closely resembles the 1974-1975 shifts in spending patterns resulting from the first surge in oil prices due to the Arab oil embargo and pricing strategies.

'calculated using the "Implicit Price Ceflators for Gross i\lational Product" Economic Indica- tors (April 1980) p. 2.

Table 6 Percent of Personal Consumption Expenditure

Curable goods Non durable goods Services

Furniture Motor Vehicles and Clothing Total & Parts I-lousehold Total Food & Shoes Gasoline

Source: U. S . Council of,Economic Advisers, Economic Indicators April 1973, Aprll 1980.

SALE ESTIMATES FOR NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL USES.

The 1978 Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers guide to retailing characteristics draws on data collected for the December 31, 1976 to Auqust 1, 1977 ~eriodfor 607 shoooina centers in the United States and Canada. betailed surnmarie; provide listings of chora'c'terkics for four classes of shopping center (Super Regional, Regional, Community and Neighborhood) and also provide geographic region summaries. Jefferson County is considered a part of the I Midwest Region by this report. The table below lists the median tenant soles per square foot 1 of gross leasable area (CLA) that were characteristic of the entire sample of centers in the ! ! U.S. and for the Midwest Region. Where possible tenant sales per square foot of GLA for ! specific tenants sales are noted.

Table A Tenant Sales per Square Foot of CLA (1977)

Super Region Region Community Neighborhood a/b c/d e / f 9 1 h 1977 U.S. 100.07 88.9 1 91.74 1 10.76

1977 Midwest N.A. U.S.IMidwest Key Shop Tobacco Leather Camera Jewelry Photographer Doughnut Meat, Poultry & Fish Costume Jewelry Pretzel Shop Radio, T1,/,Hi-Fi Candy and Nuts UnisexlJeans Shop Ice Cream Parlor Fast FoodICarry Out Family Wear Men and Boys Shoes Restaurant no liquor Ladies Specialty Restaurant with Liquor Menswear Books and Stationary Ladies Ready To 'Near Family Shoes Ladies Shoes Cards & Gifts Imports Shoe Repoir Discount Dept. Store Amusement Arcade Yard Goods Variety Stare Figure Salon METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING 1975 PER CAPITA INCOPLE AND 1980 PER CAPITA INCOME FOR SMOKETOWN CENSUS TRACTS.

Sources of Information 1) 1970 Census of Population and Housing, Census Tracts (Louisville, KY-IND) PHC (11-118 Tables P-1, P-4 (May 1972) 2) Current Population Reports: Population Estimates and Projections, 1976 Population Estimates and 1975 and Revised 1974 Per Capita Income Estimates for Counties and Incorporated Places in Kentucky. Series P-25, No. 756; Table 1, (January, 1979).

From source (1) above was extracted (A) 1970 Total Population (from Table P-1) and (B) Number of Families (C) Mean Family Income (1969) (D) Number of Individuals (E) Mean Individual Income (1969) from table P-4. Per Capita Income was calculated as:

((BXC) + (DXE)) i A = PC1

Values were calculated for Smoketown neighborhood Census Tracts, Louisville, and Jefferson County. The 1969 PC1 figures were then incrementally inflated at annual rates of 2 to 10% and compared to the "known" 1970, 1974 and 1975 City of LouisvLlle and Jefferson County PC1 (1974) $4402 and (1975) $4719, and for Jefferson County (1974) $4749 and (1975) $5086. The annual growth rates of 8% in Per Capita Income best approximated the 1975 Census estimates.

It should be noted that several factors contribute to such a high annual growth rate. First, inflation averaged between 3 and 4% for 1969-1975. Second, there was a growth in real wages, and in the labor force participation rates, with increased numbers of working wives joining their husbands in the work force. Finally, it should be noted that the family size for Jefferson County is estimated to have reduced to about 92.6% of what it was in 1970 by 1075 according to the 1976 Comprehensive Plan Revision Background Information Series: Population (Table 33), and recent review would indicate that the drop in household size is even greater than that report estimated. The combined effect of these factors result in the seemingly inflated annual growth rates of PCI.

For 1980 PC1 Estimates, an average annual growth in PC1 of 9% for the 1969-1980 period best maintained the 1970 national to local ratio of PC1 indicating that the rate of inflation was higher in the last five years of the decade. In 1969 Louisville had (Table E and Table C) 80.65% of the U.S. average PC1 and Jefferson County had 86.66%. The 1980 U.S. PC1 was $973 (Economic Indicators, April, 1980 - First quarter annualized) which would give Louisville a 1980 PC1 of $7479 (versus $7659 generated by 1969-1980 annual lncrease of 9%) and Jefferson County a 1980 PC1 of $8036 (versus $8229 - as above). These estimates for tracts are probably adequately accurate given the span of tlme, population estimate reliability and use of the data. Appendix 5

Documentation of Citizen and Agency Review Processes Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission 900 Fiscal Court Building, Louisville, Kentucky 40202 502-581-6230

June 23, 1982

Mr. Delano Miller Comnunity Development Cabinet 727 West Main Street Louisville, Kentucky 40202 Dear Delano: The draft Smoketown-Jackson Neighborhood Plan developed by the Smoketown Task Force and Planning Commission staff has been completed. A public meeting has been scheduled for July 13th and comments are being requested from agencies affected by the Plan. A list of agencies receiving copies and being asked to comment on the Plan is attached. If you are aware of any omissions or feel that additional agencies or groups should receive copies, please let me know as soon as possible. Sincerely,

Dave Hulefeld Smoketown Project Manager cc: Bobbie Hinde Bruce Duncan Dave Ripple Agencies and Groups Reviewing the Smoketown Neighborhood Plan

Community Development Cabinet Bobbie Hinde Bruce Duncan Christal Reed Delano Miller Housing Department David Flores Landmarks Commission Ann Hassett Economic Development Office Robert Bowman Housing Authority Robert Astorino Law Department Sondra Rouark Traffic Engineering Dennis Floore Police Department Capt. Howard Swartz Department of Building Inspection Robert Sewell TARC John Woodford Public Works Bill Brasch Metro Parks Anita Solodkin New Directions, Ijc. Bob French Project Warm Jim Walsh Presbyterian Community Center Rev. Coleman Legal Aid Society Brian de St. Croix Louisville Tenant Union Jerry Smith Ky Department of Transportation Bill Monhollon Bureau for Manpower Services (DHR) Peggy Dostal Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission

900 Fiscal Court Building, Louisville, Kentucky 40202 502-581-6230

June 24, 1982

A copy of the draft Smoketown Neighborhood Plan is attached for your review. The plan was prepared by the Planning Commission staff in cooperation with the Smoketown Task Force, at the request of the Board of Aldermen. It was developed to meet the requirements of Ordinance 22, Series 1980, the Neighborhood Plan Ordinance. The Ordinance requires review of draft plans by agencies involved with the plans, prior to submittal to the Board of Aldermen for adoption. The draft plan's land use, transportation and housing recommendations have been approved by the Smoketown Task Force. The plan will be presented at a public meeting in the neighborhood on July 13th and revisions to the draft plan will be determined at a subsequent meeting with the Task Force. As an agency affected by the plan or recommended to assist in implementing it, your review of the draft plan is essential. Please indicate by letter whether your agency approves the plan, has no comment, or reasons for disapproval of the draft plan, as well as suggestions and comments on how to improve the plan. Receipt of your comments before July 13, 1982 is necessary, so that revisions can be discussed with the Task Force. Non-receipt of comments by that date will be considered as a no comment response by your agency. If you have any questions, please call Dave Hulefeld of my staff at 581-5860.

Acting Executive Director cc: Dave Hulefeld File Legal June 29. 1YuL 1A Notices PUBLIC NOTICE I" &I hlfillnat ot me '.suinn*nn ot ih. N.i& borhood PlaOrdinon<. IO* No. 12 1980, GW d Louimlb), Itw srmw-i a z=2z=* ad nr*inp ruads, July 13. I982- d 7100 PXd Spdflno Mrnoml AME Zion Church. 971 South Preston %, Louisvill..

"ill. cm~.Dm@ nwl M*rl for .fa Wldl shwmly.ih. propoud pbdl b wb mined to the Boord of Louisville and JefSerson County Planning Comnnission

900 Fiscal Court Building, Louisville, Kentucky 40202 502-581-6230

TO: Alderman Steve Magre, Alderman Arthur Smith -Dk FROM: Dave Hulefeld, through David A. Rippl@- DATE : July 29, 1982

A public meeting on the Smoketown-Jackson Neighborhood Plan was held at 971 South Preston Street on July 13, 1982. The Plan's major findings and recommendations were presented, followed by questions and comments from area residents. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Plan was adopted by the Smoketown Plan Task Force and the Smoketown Community Development Association. Comments voiced at the meeting focused on actions to be taken by the neighborhood to ensure plan adoption and implementation. Points of discussion included the following: 1) Children crossing Jackson and Hancock Streets in Sheppard Square are a major traffic safety issue. The Plan's recommendation that this problem be studied and appropriate measures installed will be actively pursued by the neighborhood. Prompt action by the City is desired. 2) The schedule for plan adoption and implementation was discussed. Neighborhood residents are interested in continuing the momentum that has been generated in Smoketown. 3) The neighborhood's responsibility for plan implementation was stressed. The Smoketown Community Development Association should not wait for aldermanic adoption to begin coordinating plan implementation. MEMORANDUM

CITY OF LOUISVILLE

TO: David A. Ripple, Acting Executive Director Planning Carmission I FROM : Herb Zimnem, Assistant Director . Building Inspection

RE : Snnketown - Jackson Neighborhood Strategy Plan

DATE : July 8, 1982

We have reviewed the draft of the Strategy Plan for the Smoketown - Jackson Neighborhood and reccmnend its approval. Although we reviewed and discussed the general recarmendations, problems and trends, we concentrated our review and discussion upon the zoning, housing and land use proposals. We especially feel that development of a neighborhood organization would be beneficial to neighborhood revitalization, housing repair and vacant lot cleanup efforts. We lwk forward to cooperating with the Urban Land Office in the land banking and recycling program in this area.

Ox mjor concern with the draft is with the maintenance of vacant lots. Page 1-42 is incorrect in stating that Environmental Inspection refers problem lots to the Sanitation Department. We have a federally funded private contractor directly responsible for performing maintenance if any environmental citation is ignored. Demands for Payment are sent to'the responsible person before a lien is posted. Although we still have problans with clouded titles and absentee landowners, this program is certainly mre efficient. It can provide timely service to the neighborhood, especially if there is comnunity involvement.

We also have scme minor concerns regarding the C&ity Garden and Nurseryconcept. Although a successful program would certainly improve the comnunity's self-image we would like to see mre detail and emphasis placed on administration, funding and maintenance.

We appreciate the opportunity to cannent on the plan.

-LaUISVlLLE & JEFFERSON COUNTY -PLANNING .COMMISSION MEMORANDUM CITY OF LOUISVILLE

TO: David A. Ripple, Acting Executive Director Planning Carmission

FW)M: Herb Zinmenran, Assistant Director . ' Building Inspection Rd: Smketown - Jackson Neighborhood Strategy Plan DATE : July 8, 1982

IVe have retiewed the draft of the Strategy Plan for the Simketown - Jackson Neighborhood and recarmend its approval. Although we reviewed and discussed the general recarmendations, problem and trends, we concentrated our review and discussion upon the zoning, housing and land use proposals. We especially feel that development of a neighborhood organization would be beneficial to neighborhood revitalization, housing repair and vacant lot cleanup efforts. We look folward to cooperating with the Urban Land Office in the land banking and recycling program in this area.

Our major concern with the draft is with the maintenance of vacant lots. Page 1-42 is incorrect in stating that Environmental Inspection refers problem lots to the Sanitation Department. We have a federally funded private contractor directly responsible for performing maintenance if any environmental citation is ignored. Dmands.for Payment are sent to the responsible person before a lien is posted. Although we still have problems with clouded titles md absentee landavners, this program is certainly mre efficient. It can provide timely service to the neighborhood, especially if there is caununity involvement. We also have sane minor concerns regarding the Camunity Garden and Nurseryconcept. Although a successful program would certainly improve the ccomunity's self-image we would like to see more detail and emphasis placed on administration, funding and maintenance. We appreciate the opportunity to ccmnent on the plan.

!,QUISYILLE & lEFFERSOW COUNTY -PLANNING COblIIEIIISSiON huisviUe and JeEferson Couaty Planning Commission

900 Fiscal Court Building, Louisville, Kentucky 40202 502-581-6230 I

August 4, 1982

Mr. Herb Zimmerman Assistant Director Department of Building Inspection 617 Ciest Jefferson Street Louisville, XY 40202 Dear Herb: Thank you for your review of the Snoketown-Jackson~Xei~hborhoodPlan. As a result of your July a, 1982, memorandum, the following revisions have been nade: 1. Part D. 8 of the Land Use section, Measures to Maintain Vacant Lots, makes reference to the contractual arrangement recently established to deal with the City's vacant lot problem 2. Parts D. 7 and D. 9, Community ~urseryand Community Gardens, indicate the need for the neighborhood association to provide for the maintenance of these facilities. I appreciate your cooperation in promptly reviewing the draft plan. Sincerely,

David M. Hulefeld Smoketown Plan Project Manager cc: David A. Ripple Edward Faye File I I I r Louisv~lle,Kentucky 40233 i' 502 459-0440

July 7, 1982

David Ripple Acting Director Planning Commission Fiscal Court Building Louisville, KY 40202

Dear Mr. Ripple:

The Smoketown Neighborhood Plan is well done with regard to parks and recreation. However, here are several points we be- lieve should be called to your attention:

1. You might want to include the following acreage figures for the parks: Ballard is 1 .O1 acres and Lampton is 2.4 acres.

2. Although the Plan recommends improving facilities at both Ballard and Lampton Parks (Page 1-27], improvement at Lampton may not be necessary since the city spent $60,000 in 1980 to renovate the park.

3. The boundaries of Lampton Park are shown incorrectly on the maps; Lampton actually extends to Hancock Street.

4. The descriptions of park facilities are correct, except that one of the basketball courts in Lampton Park is a half-court rather than a regular full-sized court.

5. Appendix. E mentions a problem about "children crossing . street between two parks -- across Hancock between projects." Since there's only one park on Hancock Street, this item must be incorrectly worded.

6. The issue of "not enough tot lots" mentioned in Appendix E is debatable. This area is, in fact, better served by parkland than are many neighborhoods. In addition, it is well known that Metro Parks can no longer afford to maintain a plethora of tiny parks. Further, tot lots are very restrictive in terms of their potential offerings.. Thersfore,

we've made it a practice since 1977 to avoid coArmtion-, ,- and maintenance of isolated tot lots wherever possible.- - Letter to David Ripple Page 2 July 7, 1982

7. Metro Parks' recreation programs operating out of the Presbyterian Community Center are about to be expanded. The Metro Parks staff at this center has recently been increased from one to two full-time persons, and greater cooperation with the Center should produce a much better recreation program.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this plan. We look forward to continuing to work with you on the remaining neighborhood plans.

Sincerely,

ob Kirc sDirector / / Louisville and Jefferson Couaty Planning Cbmmission

900 Fiscal Court Building, Louisville, Kentucky 40202 502-587-6230

August 3, 1982

Mr. Bob Kirchdorfsr

Director~ -- Metro Parks and Recreation P. 0. Box 37280 Louisville, KY 40233 Dear Mr. Kirchdorfer: Thank you for your letter of July 7, 1982, containicg the Parks Department's comments on the draft Smoketown-Jac;

Points 5 and 6 deal with Appendix E, the problem identification session conducted with neighborhood residents. Appendix E contains ldeas and comments of residents; it is not intended to represent zhe staff's findings or the Plan's recommendations. The Plan does cot endorse adding tot lots in Smoketown. No change in Appendix E is considered necessary. The increased involvement of Metro Parks' staff in recreation programs (point 7) is a positive step for the neighborhood. The Plan endorses this change in item D. 23, Expanding Recreation Opportunities. I appreciate your cooperation in promptly reviewing the draft plan. Sincerely, -Pa MAW Dave Hulef eld Smoketown Plan Project Manager cc: David A. Ripple Edward Faye File :k. MllhB. GPterWd Mrector af Comnunitp CeMloFamllt -t? D-1-E Cnbhlet 727 'Yest %in Street, 4zh noor hiailla, Kantwky 40202

C3drpr.on of ths joard 02 L%a -?rabytcriaa ikmmity Canter, 5 write pa in eupgort of the ~~atkaon:l@i&Imrhod ?tan under unrei~IetaLianby thr ibmwdty %walop%nt hbZnel: Sat aarlp action of th. 0f atd-.

2he ihabytezfon Cammmity Cenm, thmrrgh both board and staff. followed the coatimhg wxk of tfie Fbmiag ChmisoLon and Zhe mrk of ihe bkntorsn Taak Posca LR t5a prqeratioa af &a phn.

It fa our opinion that the Plan represents serijua d accep+abl* optima for tka SmokeSmnJackaan Brap Sven the conetraints of ra- sourcam, 5P la dar our ophhtht the Pha Most9a banis re- v~for the cbraetsr, nature, md naade of tha -. '.ile aut mwt 'm wished for hxdar fmaep Ln the mda,WQ Go be- Ihthay project r~lizabla3~ln au tha 3ourd af AMertuen sack. in- ?zovment £or ite citizear in Smoke-

4e note, especially, inpmsad ~OUS~Jiuid i;irtd ULM. prhrittm d phased change in ~anqmt%%tLoureumsmrdafions, ad 'basic to dl, sua@lnned ne~borilwdorwtion, 57a -dim that ths procsas of cermmity change require. rsql-kwity and sbadtmraftp m rhet ces~uatedeffort ouppafl a revftalizatbn of life an3 spirit ia &e cart &V* Wn uro,o gau tidl conaideratioa of the ?Ian th& to early ap proval 37 me Scard of Aldamm~with Atinnthat tie bud ap- 7,M, aad fmplenent ths 2lan. Piema knm that th BDlrd of tb. RemW=hu W~Y*+ar standm ready to ba pram in auppor+ of tb. ?lan as hrlnss schPd- uld. '&a uxge ita rvprwd ad mrly Wis~samu-

cc: Magot aamey I. 31opl. Aldensen SMs~%EgrCl ~6.David A. itipple. AcEing -ti- Nrrictor, 3lia~ningCamlamfan Mrs. :ky Pa-, Chairperson, Snukettmn ?hTaak ?- :*. Z&mzd Papa, MrecLor, Slmketbva OEmpmritJ Development Assacbtion Rev. louts Calamm, Exeattfva Director, Fmsbyterkn -ty Center Acknowledgements

Commlssion Members Jerome Hutchinson ...... Chairman Mrs. M. L. Lyons Brown ...... Vice-chairman Earl Brumley Raymond C. Dauenhauer, Jr. Carroll Lurding I Ex-officio Members Harvey I. Sloane ...... Mayor City of Louisville Mitch McConnell ...... County Judge Executive Jefferson County Fiscal Court R. Michael French ...... Director Department of Public Works, Louisville James N. Birch ...... Secretary for Public Works and Transportation, Jefferson County

Project Staff

David M. Hulefeld ...... Project Manager Denise M. DeVito ...... PlanneriAuthor Edwin W. Mellett ...... PlanneriAuthor Anna L. Samuels ...... PlanneriAuthor Technical Services Division ...... Research, Stenographics, Graphics and Publications

David A. Ripple ...... Acting Executive Director and Project Supervisor

Robert Y. Bowman ...... Executive Director (through February 1982)

huidlla aad Jafhrron County Plandng Commission