Clifton Neighborhood Plan Area Is Residential (80.8%) Commercial (13.4%) and Industrial (6.7%)

October, 1989

&,LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY IPLANNING COMMISSION

TABLE OF CONTENTS I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. LAND USE A. Needs Assessment Page 1. SummaryofFindings ...... 1 2. ExistingConditions ...... 1 a) Background b) Existing Land Use C) Housing Characteristics d) Commercial and Industrial Development e) Community Facilities f) Zoning g) Structural Conditions h) Historic Resources

3. Neighborhood Profile...... 12 a) Demographic Change b) Socio-Economic Profile C) Housing Occupancy Characteristics

4. Analysis...... 14 a) Residents' Perceptions and Prior Study b) Land Use C) Zoning d) Housing e) Demand for Neighborhood Commercial f) Parks and Recreation

5. Government and Non-Government Actions ...... 21 . 6. Summary of Problems and Issues...... 22 B. Projection of Existing Conditions...... 24 C. Alternatives and Recommendations ...... 29 1. Alternative Strategies...... 29 2. Recommended Land Use Plan ...... 40 3. Recommended Zoning Plan/Rezoning...... 40

D. Implementation...... 43 -- E. Priorities ...... 56

LANDUSEFIGURES...... 59 LIST OF TABLES I . LAND USE Page 1-1 Land Use: Clifton Neighborhood ...... 93 1-2 Community Facilities ...... 7 1-3 Parks and Recreation Facilities ...... 8 1-4 Zoning: Clifton Neighborhood ...... 93 1-5 Structural Conditions Clifton Neighborhood ...... 94 I1 . TRANSPORTATION 11-1 Analysis of Key Intersections ...... 104 11-2 Automobile Ownership: Clifton Vicinity ...... 107 11-3 High Accident Locations ...... 118 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Land Use ~i a. Existing Conditions I The Clifton neiqhborhood plan has been prepared for an area bounded by Brownsboro Road on the north, Ewing Avenue on the east, Interstate 64 on the south and Mellwood Avenue on the west. Clifton is a predominately residential neighborhood and a majority of the residential units are single family homes. Commercial use activities are concentrated along Brownsboro Road and Frankfort Avenue. Industrial use is found along the CSX railroad south of Frankfort Avenue and along Mellwood Avenue. Institutional uses include the Kentucky School for the Blind, one public and one private school, seven churches and a fire station. Existing land uses in the neiqhborhood are shown on Figure I-A (page 59) . Existing zoning in the Clifton neighborhood plan area is residential (80.8%) commercial (13.4%) and industrial (6.7%). In the residential areas the most common zoning classification is the R-6 (multi-family) zone which allows 17.4 dwelling units ! per acre or one dwelling unit per 2,500 square feet of lot area. The second most common residential zone is the R-7 (multi-family) zone which allows 34.8 dwelling units per acre or one dwelling per 1,250 square feet of lot area. Existing zoning is shown on Fiqure I-C (page 67). Homes in the neighborhood are generally in good condition although concentrations of residential structures needing major repairs are found in the western portions of the neighborhood. A slightly higher percent of the total residential units in the area were owner- occupied in 1980 than renter occupied, and this rate represented an increase in owner-occupancy since 1970. . The neighborhood population in 1980 was 4,167 persons. Popula- tion declined 17.8% from 1970 to 1980, a rate close to the City of Louisville's rate of loss. Per capita income in the Clifton neighborhood was only about 89% of the 1980 city average. Education levels, based on the percent of high school gradu- ates, were lower in Clifton than for the city average but a slightly higher percent of Clifton's residents did have four or more years of college. Part of the Clifton neighborhood is an historic district listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Figure 1-1 (page 89) shows the boundaries of this district. b) Goals General goals for the neighborhood are derived from the specific issues and recommendations identified by the residents of the neighborhood at the first and second public meetings. From the listing of the neighborhood's problems and positive Lighting of streets and alleys may be inadequate in some areas. The plan recommends use of the petition process, available through the City of Louisville Public Works Department, to establish areas where residents desire additional lighting. 2. Transportation a. Existing Conditions Clifton neighborhood is bordered by a major arterial road and an interstate highway and bisected by a second major arterial road. Frankfort Avenue, the bisecting arterial is lined with commercial establishments and is strongly tied to the neighborhood's identity. The neighborhood has access to the interstate system and is a convenient location for downtown commuters. The study area is well served by bus service; sidewalks are present in most areas although many need repair. b. Issues and Recommendations Clifton has numerous features that could be considered transportation problems: narrow streets, at-grade railroad crossings, steep hills and, a lack of alleys in some areas. How- ever, the residents of the neighborhood did not consider these problems as serious as a standards-based assessment would have indicated. Instead residents appreciated the traffic-slowing effect of narrow streets in residential areas and considered adapting to rail crossings "a part of living in the Clifton area. " Pedestrian facility improvements, particularly those which allow for safer travel by the blind and visually impaired persons living in the neighborhood are a major transportation issue. Facilities used by the blind include the Kentucky School for the Blind, Kentucky Industries for the Blind, the American Printing House for the Blind and Recordings for the Blind. The plan encourages public construction and public and private reconstruction of sidewalks in the area. Figure 11-H on page 155 shows the location of new construction recommended for the area. Other graphics in the plan identify tripping hazards on neighborhood sidewalks that need repair. Steep north-facing streets where snow and ice persist due to a lack of direct sunlight are recommended for addition to the City of Louisville's prioritylist for snow removal. Hazardous intersections, identified through review of recent traffic accidents in the area, are recommended for specific improvements. The plan recommends installation of an "all red" condition in the traffic signal at Frankfort and Mellwood Avenues intersection to allow the intersection to clear, relocation of the stop bar for eastbound Frankfort Avenue, and reduction of business curb cuts. At Brownsboro Road and Mellwood Avenue the installation of two signs to indicate that eastbound traffic on Mellwood Avenue in the right lane must turn right is recommended along with re-marking the stop bars. At Frankfort Avenue and Pope Street a modernization of the fire signal due for completion in 1989 should improve safety. At Ewing Avenue and Brownsboro Road new pedestrian signals will be installed. The plan also recommends re-marking the stop bars and adding new crosswalks at this location. The plan recommends prohibiting through-truck traffic on residential streets and meeting with local businesses to work out problems with existing truck traffic. Two one-way desig- nations are recommended by the plan: the alley north of CSX railroad at Pope Street on the east side of the street is recommended for a one-way eastbound designation and North Jane Street is recommended for one-way north bound travel between Sycamore Avenue and the entrance to the Castle/Oxford Hill Apartments. The plan also recommends two narrow streets be widened: New Main Street between Frankfort and South Bellaire Avenues ahd Bickels Lane where it currently has a twelve foot pavement width. Limiting parking at the corner of Bickels Lane and Saunders Avenue to allow turns is also recommended. Brick streets have been patched with asphalt and concrete, rather than brick after utility repairs. The plan recommends that utility work requiring the removal of street bricks restore the streets to their original (brick) conditions. Residents are encouraged to report such repair work to the council so that restoration can be monitored. c. Review Process Citizen Participation. The Clifton plan was developed with the coo~erationof the residents of the neiqhborhood in compliance with the requirements of applicable citi ordinances. he Planning Commission staff met with the Clifton Task Force eleven times between September, 1988 and May, 1989. The Task I Force identified issues and problems in the neighborhood, suggested alternative solutions, helped develop the plan's 1 I recommendations, reviewed the actions to implement the plan, l and set priorities for those actions. Three public meetings I were held on the neighborhood plan. These meetings were advertised in the newspaper, in the neighborhood newsletter and through notices posted in neighborhood businesses. Through the public meetings interested persons have been able to learn ahout the planning process and to have input into its development. A meeti-ng was also held separately with businesses to receive comments on the plan, and staff persons attended two of the business association meetings during the plan's development. Next Steps Public agencies reviewed this draft plan and commented on its recommendations. Planning Commission staff responded to these comments and approval by the Board of Alderman is requested. Based on this plan's recommendations, the Clifton neighborhood will be rezoned. A Planning Commission hearing on proposed zoning changes, following notification of affected property owners, is anticipated in the Winter of 1989. Implementation of zoning changes requires action by the Board of Aldermen. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS COMMISSION MEMBERS Minx Auerbach...... Chairman Ray McDonald ...... Vice-chairman Elaina Fischer Jerome Hutchinson James Seraphine Douglas Taylor Ex-officio Members Jerry E. Abramson...... Mayor City of Louisville Harvey I. Sloane, M.D ...... County Judge Executive Jefferson County Fiscal Court William E. Herron...... Director Department of Public Works, Louisville Dale R. Hettinger...... Jefferson County Engineer

PROJECT STAFF Edwin W. Mellett ...... Project Manager/Author Drafting/Graphics Division ...... Typing, Graphics, Copying David M. Hulefeld. . Director of Advance Planning Division Paul A. Bergmann ...... Executive Director I LAND USE NEEDS ASSESSMENT Summary of Findings The Clifton neighborhood is a predominantly residential area with 58.9% of its land area currently used for housing. A majority of the dwelling units (61%) are single family units. The number of owner occupied dwelling units are in the neighborhood is increasing. New construction of residential units since 1980 has likely reversed the population loss experienced by the neighborhood for the 1970-1980 period. Apartment zoning accounts for a large percentage (73.4%) of the neighborhood. These zoning districts do not reflect the current use of the areas involved and would permit substantial increases over the density of current development. Rental unit vacancies increased from 1970 to 1980 indicating weak demand for the units created through the conversion of older, large single family homes. The Kentucky School for the Blind, Kentucky Industries for the Blind, Recordings for the Blind, American Printing House for the Blind, and the large number of blind and visually impaired persons in the neighborhood create special demands on pedestrian facilities, transit and commercial establishments. Residents' demand for neighborhood-serving commercial use was compared to the existing stores in and adjacent to the neighborhood and found to.be adequate in mix and quantity. Park facilities within the neiqhborhood include Bingham Park and Clifton Mini-Park. The Hilliard Scenic Easement located along the north side of Grinstead Drive adds additional open space. Existing Conditions Background Clifton is a moderate size neiqhborhood located in the near eastern portion of the City of Louisville. For purposes of this study the neighborhood boundaries are Mellwood Avenue, Brownsboro Road, Ewing Avenue, Grinstead Drive and Interstate Highway 64. This is an area of approximately 423 acres. Figure I-A on page 59 illustrates the boundary of the neighborhood. The skyline of the Clifton neiqhborhood was dominated by the five story Kentucky School for the Blind from its completion in 1855 until its demolition in 1967. The structure predated most of the residential development in the neighborhood. Today, the Kentucky School for the Blind, housed in a modern structure, still stands as a cornerstone of the neighborhood and the adjacent American Printing House for the Blind is the area's largest employer. Residential subdivision activity in Clifton neighborhood began on the western edge along Mellwood Avenue, then called Reser- voir Avenue, in 1850 and peaked by about 1890. Some small subdivisions were laid out after 1890, mostly filling in the vacant tracts left by previous development. In more recent decades in-fill development of the more environmentally constrained land (slopes primarily), as well as demolition of older homes and construction of apartments and nursing homes, has occurred. The recent construction of a condominium complex on previously undeveloped land south of Bickels Lane and new apartments on North Clifton represent a new phase of in-fill residential growth in the neighborhood and have raised concerns about development of other vacant parcels previously felt to be too difficult to develop. b. Existing Land Use Clifton is a predominantly residential area with a mix of I institutional, industrial and commercial uses scattered throughout. Figure I-A shows the existing distribution of land uses in the Clifton neighborhood. Table 1-1 (page 93) shows the acreaqe and percent of the total land area in each land use category, and the acreage of the major instdtutional uses. i Single family homes account for the largest single category of land use with 44.3% of the land area. Duplexes occupy about 4.8% of the land area and buildings with three or more units occupy an additional 9.8%. Two large congregate-care facilities for the elderly, Sacred Heart Home and the Brownsboro Hill Nursing Home, represent additional group-residential use activities but are classified as medical services.

Educational uses including the Kentucky School for the Blind, I Ursuline-Pitt School and Franklin Elementary School make up 4.4% of the developed area of Clifton. Vacant land is the I second largest category of land use in the area, 12.75%. Vacant property in the neighborhood includes an area separated by steep cliffs from the balance of Clifton along Interstate Highway 64. A five acre site is being developed for apartments 1I adjacent to the Sacred Heart Home. c. Housing Characteristics The 1980 Census provides the most recent data on the Clifton neighborhood's residents and housing characteristics. Clifton had 4,167" residents living in 1,746 dwelling units in 1980.

*Census Bureau's Neighborhood Statistics count showed 4,173 persons but included a Census Block that was not mapped in the totals. This averaged 2.39 persons per occupied dwelling unit. Single family (one unit at address) housing units made up 61% of the housing stock in 1980. By comparison, the city-wide ratio for single family homes was 69% of the housing stock. Appendix I Table B provides detailed information for housing characteristics by Census Block and Tract. The intensity of residential development is measured by dwelling unit "density," the ratio of the number of dwelling units to land area. Overall density in the Clifton area falls in a medium density category of 5-12 dwellings per acre with an average developed density excluding rights-of-way of 10.1 units per acre in 1987. The R-5 Single Family Residential zone allows 7.26 dwelling units per acre and the R-5A Multi-Family Residential zone allows 12.01 units per acre. However, the predominant existing zoning in Clifton is R-6 Multi-Family Residential zone (60% of the land area) which allows 17.42 dwellings per acre. Single family units (one unit at address from the 1980 Census) numbered 1,148 units and occupied 148.4 acres of land in 1988. This is a density of 7.7 units per acre. Some of the single family homes are built to substantially higher densities and would require R-5A or possibly R-6 zoning to be conforming. Multi-family uses (including duplexes) occupy only 24.6% of the land area in 1988, about 49 acres. There were an estimated 852 multi-family units in 1988. This is an average lot density of 17.4 units per acre. This range could be accommodated with R-6 zoning although specific locations, as in the case of single family homes, have densities exceeding the average and requiring higher zoning classification to be conforming. The 1980 rate of owner occupancy in the neighborhood was 49%. . This represents an increase over 1970 when only 47% of the units were owner occupied. The most recent developments in the area, the apartments along North Clifton Avenue and Crescent Springs, are multi-family uses. Crescent Springs is a condo- I minium complex and while units may be occupied by renters, 1 there is apparently a high rate of owner occupancy. It is likely, given the new construction and 1970 to 1980 trend, that the owner occupancy rate has continued to increase in the Clifton neighborhood since 1980. Owner occupancy is considered beneficial to a neighborhood's long term vitality. Home owners are generally more concerned with maintaining a desirable neighborhood and protecting their investment than are absentee owners. The lower rates of owner occupancy are found on the north side of Frankfort between Haldeman and Jane, the blocks facing Frankfort from the south side between Mellwood and Galt* Avenues and the north side of Payne Street from Charlton to Bellaire.

*Galt Avenue is the name of the alley between Waverly Court and Haldeman Avenue.

3 A large portion of Clifton's housing stock is over 100 years old as noted in the brief historical sketch. According to the 1 1980 Census, only 32% of the units in 1980 were constructed after 1940. Generally speaking the older units are located closer to Mellwood although more recent infill occurs throughout the area. Vacancy rates in Clifton averaged 7.4% in 1980. The portion of Census Tract 81 in Clifton had the highest vacancy rate (10.6%) while the part of Census Tract 80 in the neighborhood had the lowest (4.1%) rate. Figure I-E shows Census Tract boundaries. At a block level, vacancy ranged from 0% to 45.5% in 1980. The two highest rates were observed for the block bounded by Frankfort Avenue, State Street, Arlington Avenue and Pope Street (45.5%) and the "L" shaped block bounded by Mellwood Avenue, Stevenson Street, Arlington Avenue, Charlton Street, Locust Avenue and Interstate Highway 64 (30.8% vacant). d. Commercial and Industrial Development Commercial land uses (including vacant commercial structures and parking) accounted for 6.2% of the land area in Clifton in 1988, about 21 acres of land in all. This category is broken down into four subcategories: neighborhood, regional, service and office commercial. Figure I-B: Commercial Classification shows the location of the various types of commercial use in the Clifton neighborhood. Twelve vacant commercial structures were found in the neighborhood at the time of the land use survey. Neighborhood commercial uses include retail stores, bars and restaurants, and other uses that serve the shopping needs of nearby residents for personal consumption items such as food, medicine, liquor and clothing. In 1988 thirty-one (31) of these uses were within the boundaries of Clifton. Another twenty (20) uses are immediately adjacent to the neighborhood boundaries. Concentrations of these land uses are found primarily along the north side of Brownsboro Road between Haldeman Avenue and Vernon Avenue extended along the south side of Brownsboro from that point east to Mount Holly Avenue, and on both sides of Brownsboro from there to east of Ewing. This linear strip is the primary market place in the neighborhood but a smaller strip exists from South Clifton to Ewing along both sides of Frankfort Avenue. Melton's Food Market is the largest single use in this I cluster. Other scattered neighborhood-serving uses are located I I throughout the area along the main roadways. I I The neighborhood commercial uses along Brownsboro Road include three named shopping centers within the area: Brownsboro Plaza, 1977 Brownsboro Road; Cliffside Plaza at 1961 Brownsboro I Road and Cliffboro Center at 2200 Brownsboro Road. A fourth center, Oxford Center at 225 North Clifton, is primarily office and service commercial. A list of the neighborhood-serving commercial uses in and adjacent to the Clifton neighborhood is provided in Appendix I. The table indicates square footage and estimates annual sales based on survey data from the Urban Land Institute. Figure B: Commercial Classification shows the location of these uses. These uses are concentrated in small shopping centers along Brownsboro Road, at the corner of Frankfort and Ewing and scattered along the rest of Frankfort Avenue, Brownsboro Road and Mellwood Avenue. Regional commercial uses are retail stores that draw customers from a wide area and are not dependent on residents of a single neighborhood for support. Regional commercial uses are primarily those which sell durable goods (appliances, automobiles, or furniture), luxury goods (jewelry or fur coats,) and specialty items (orthopedic braces, drafting materials). Gasoline stations are included in this category as they serve a stream of traffic rather than a limited geographic area. In 1988, eight regional commercial uses were found within the boundaries of the Clifton neighborhood and an additional six uses were immediately adjacent to the area. Commercial services include such uses as barber shops, beauti- cians, dry cleaners, laundromats, banks and repair services. Most of these use activities are neighborhood oriented although through traffic may generate some support for these facilities. The September 1988 land use survey found 39 of these uses in the Clifton neighborhood and an additional 12 uses adjacent to the neighborhood. Office uses include professional offices such as lawyers, architects, engineers or accountants, real estate and rental agencies. Medical offices are not included. The land use survey found five offices in Clifton and four adjacent to the neighborhood. e. Community Facilities Community facilities serving the Clifton neighborhood are shown in Table 1-2. Clifton neighborhood includes two public parks (Bingham and Clifton) and is served by four larger facilities nearby: Cherokee Park; Crescent Hill Park and Golf Course; Eva Bandman Park; and Thruston Park. The facilities provided in each park and acreage are listed in Table 1-3. There are approximately 5.5 acres of park land in the neighborhood. The four nearby major parks had a combined total of nearly 600 acres of land. A Class I bikeway (a separate trail for exclusive bicycle/pedestrian use) borders Clifton neighborhood along Beargrass Creek west of Interstate Highway 64. A Class I11 bikeway (utilizing existing roadways with bicycle traffic traveling on each side of the roadway in the same direction as traffic) traverses the neighborhood along Payne Street and connects with the Class I facility by going north on Spring Street and east on Locust Street. The Franklin School provides recreational facilities for the neighborhood after normal school hours, and the Kentucky School for the Blind has extensive facilities for recreation adapted to the special needs of the visually impaired. Metro Parks provides summer recreation programs in Bingham Park. There are seven churches in the Clifton neighborhood. These are social centers for neighborhood residents and provide additional recreational and social services. United Crescent Hill Ministries, which provides community services throughout the greater Clifton and Crescent Hill neighborhoods is located at 1860 Frankfort Avenue. It serves as an umbrella organization for 21 churches in the area and offers emergency assistance, senior citizen meals programs, child care, and numerous other social programs. Table 1-2: Community Facilities

Public Libraries Crescent Hill Branch (outside neighborhood) 2762 Frankfort Avenue Recording for the Blind Inc. 240 Haldeman Avenue

Community Centers Salvation Army, Sanders Citadel Community Center 1701 Payne Street Crescent Hill Womans Club (outside neighborhood) 2461 Grinstead Drive Peterson-Dumesnil House (outside neighborhood) 301 South Peterson Avenue East End Boys and Girls Club (outside neighborhood) 1519 Story Avenue

Schools Franklin Elementary 1800 Arlington Avenue Ursuline-Pitt School 2117 Payne Street Kentucky School for the Blind 1867 Frankfort Avenue

Social Services Kentucky Council of the Blind 117 Coral Avenue Kentucky Industries for the Blind 1900 Brownsboro Road Salvation Army, Sanders Citadel Community Center 1701 Payne Street United Crescent Hill Ministries 1860 Frankfort Avenue

~ourc-e: Land Use Survey, Planning Commission, 1988. Table 1-3: Parks and Recreation Facilities In the Clifton Neighborhood Bingham Minipark 4.3 acres - basketball courts (full and half) - wading pool - playground equipment - walkways - restrooms - water fountains - athletic fields Clifton Minipark 1.2 acres - basketball courts (full and half) - playground equipment - benches - tennis courts - picnic grills - walkways

Serving Clifton Neighborhood

Cherokee Park 405.3 acres - archery ranqe - picnic tables and grills softbail/baseball fields - playground equipment basketball courts (full and half) - restrooms benches - shelter house fishing - sledding hills golf course tennis courts hiking trails trash receptacles bridle paths wading pools .I horseshoe pits water fountains I pavilion athletic fields I Crescent Hill Park 77 acres - golf course - walkways - swimming pool (enclosed) - water fountain - tennis court - restrooms - wading pool - trash receptacles Eva Bandman 53.6 acres - fishing areas - trash receptacles - soccer fields - water fountains Thruston 47.6 acres - softball/baseball fields - playground equipment - benches - storage buildings - horseshoe pits - tennis courts - pavilion - volleyball area - picnic tables and grills - wading pool - water fountains - walkways

Source: Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Master Action Plan, Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission and Metropolitan Parks and Recreation Board of Louisville and Jefferson County, 1982. Zoning Louisville first adopted zoning regulations in 1931. The zoning adopted for the Clifton neighborhood was substantially simpler than current zoning particularly in the area northeast of Vernon Avenue and the railroad. With the exception of industrial zoning fronting along Frankfort and Weikel between Vernon and North Clifton and a cluster of commercial zoning at Ewing and Brownsboro Roads intersection, this entire area northeast of Vernon Avenue and the railroad was zoned for single family use. Early industrial zoning explains many of the legally nonconforming uses as the uses that exist in the neighborhood predate the current (changed) zoning. Areas originally zoned indus- trially that have been changed include the following: areas north and east of the Haldeman - Arlington intersection now zoned R-6; the triangle bounded by South Bellaire Avenue, Frankfort Avenue and the railroad tracks now zoned C-2; the area north of Frankfort Avenue between Vernon and North Clifton Avenues now zoned C-2; and the strip of land on the south side of the railroad tracks extending east from the existing M-2 zoning district's terminus, east of South Bellaire Avenue, to South Clifton Avenue that is now zoned R-6 and C-2. Another area where early zoning has subsequently been changed involves the current C-1 Commercial, R-7 Apartment Residential and OR-3 Office/Apartment Residential zones along Payne Street west of Sturgis Avenue. This area was originally zoned for duplex residential use. Certainly much of Clifton was built before zoning came into existence. Vacant land in 1931 that was zoned for single fapily use has experienced some fairly intense rezoning allowing the recent commercial and apartment developments along the south side of Brownsboro Road from Vernon Avenue extended east to North Ewing Avenue. Existing Zoning. Existing zoning (July 1988) in the Clifton neiahborhood is shown on Fiqure I-C. About 77.2% of the neighborhood was zoned for iesidential use only. About 3.6% of the area was zoned for office/multi-family residential use (in addition to the 77%). Table 1-4 shows the extent of each zoning district. Commercial made up about 13% of the neighborhood and industrial land 7%. Residential Zoning. R-6 Multi-Family residential is the predominant residential zoning district in the Clifton neighborhood with 60% of the area having this classification. The R-6 zone allows 17.4 dwelling units per acre or one dwelling for each 2,500 square feet of lot area. A little over 20% of the land area in Clifton was used as right-of-way. Removing this area from the total R-6 acreage suggests that close to 200 acres of R-6 zoned land exists in the neighborhood which would allow nearly 3,500 dwelling units if fully built. This is I nearly twice the actual dwelling unit count for all of Clifton neighborhood in 1980 (1,886 units). In fact, most of the area zoned R-6 is utilized for single family homes at much lower density levels than permitted under the zoning district. The R-7 Multi-Family Residential District is the second largest category of zoning found in the Clifton neighborhood, 10.7% of the land area. The maximum density allowed under R-7 zoning is 35 units per acre or one dwelling for each 1,250 square feet of lot area per. There are seven separate locations where R-7 zoning is found in the Clifton neighborhood. The largest tract includes the Kentucky School for the Blind (KSB), American Printing House for the Blind properties, and the block face across Frankfort Avenue. The remaining six tracts are much smaller and are located on Frankfort Avenue (both sides) at Waverly Court, along the east side of Vernon Avenue north of Sycamore, on the west side of North Clifton north of Weikel Avenue, on the west side of North Ewing Avenue north of the railroad tracks and two small areas on the north side of Payne Street across from Stoll Avenue. Part of one of the tracts on Payne Street is undeveloped, and development potentially could occur on the vacant portions of the KSB properties. The R-5 Single Family Residential District is found in the northeast corner of the neighborhood as a remnant of the earliest (1931) zoning classification applied to this portion of the neighborhood, the "A" single family zoning classification. The original "A" zoning has been sharply reduced in area by the recent commercial and office/multi-family rezonings in this part of the neighborhood. The R-5 zone allows single family homes at a maximum density of 7.3 dwelling units per acre or one dwelling per 6,000 square feet of land area. Existing lots smaller than 6,000 square feet can however be developed as single family homes. The only R-1 Single Family zoned property in the neighborhood is Bingham Minipark. Office/Multi-Family residential zones, OR-2 and OR-3, are also found in the neighborhood. OR-2 allows the construction of 58 dwelling units per acre and OR-3 allows up to 435 (0 bedroom) units per acre. In addition, the OR-2 zone allows professional i office uses; OR-3 allows any type office use. The OR-2 zoning in the neighborhood is currently used for apartments and a nursing home. Most of the OR-2 is found along North Clifton Avenue north of Sycamore Avenue. Two apartment buildings on the north side of Frankfort Avenue between Coral and Haldeman also have OR-2 zoning. The OR-3 zoning is found on one site on the north side of Payne Street at Stoll Avenue. This property is used as an office by Louisville Paving. Commercial Zones. The C-1 and C-2 Commercial zoning districts are found in the Clifton neighborhood. C-1 zoning allows offices and a broad range of-service and retail uses. The C-2 Commercial district permits all the C-1 uses and also allows wholesaling, auto repair, taverns, and other uses. High density residential is also allowed in the two commercial districts. Frankfort Avenue's commercial zoning is predominantly C-2 while all of the south side of Brownsboro that is zoned for commercial use has C-1 zoning. A small C-2 zone exists behind the Kroger complex on the west side of North Jane Street and a C-1 zone exists on Payne Street at its intersection with 1-64. Industrial Zoninq. M-2 industrial zoning is found at three locations within the Clifton neighborhood. The largest area is along the CSX rail lines from 1-64 to approximately South Bellaire Avenue. The frontage along Mellwood is primarily zoned M-2. The third area is along the south side of Frankfort Avenue east of South Jane Street. g. Structural Conditions Data on the condition of residential and commercial structures in the study area was collected by means of a "windshield survey1'--slowly driving each street and noting structural conditions on a map. These ratings are based on exterior conditions only. Interior conditions may require substantial improvements, such as plumbing or heating repairs, that are not detected by this methodology. Residential structures are rated on a five category classification, and a three category system is utilized for non-residential structures. The results of the survey are shown in Table 1-5 and Figure I-D. Definitions of the rating classifications for structural conditions are provided in Appendix 11. Residential Structures. Most of the homes (76.2%) in Clifton are sound but in need of minor repairs such as painting, gutter replacement or surface masonry wokk. However, the existence of a large number of homes, sound but in need of major repair (22.2%) are troublesome indicators for the area. The older area of the neighborhood, west of Haldeman Avenue, exhibited the most serious concentrations of homes in need of major repairs, 32.7% of the units in that portion of the neighborhood and nearly 50% of the neighborhood's units in this category. Only two units were rated deteriorated and one structure was classified as dilapidated. Conversely, only 2% of the units received the highest rating (sound, no repairs needed). Non-Residential Structures. Nearly all the non-residential structures (95%) in the area were given standard ratings (the highest category) and only four units were considered to be in depreciating condition by the field survey crew. There were no substandard commercial structures in the neighborhood. h. Historic Resources The Clifton neighborhood National Register Historic District includes most of the neighborhood north of the CSX railroad. Figure I-I: Clifton National Register District shows the extent of the designated area. The residential units include a I variety of frame and brick homes ranging from small Italianate and vernacular shotgun working-class homes and Queen Anne cottages to large brick and frame structures in Classical Revival and Italianate styles. The non-residential structures include several fine churches, heavily altered commercial structures and, until recently demolished, a large pre-prohibition distillery complex. The Kentucky School for the Blind lost its most significant structure in 1967 with the demolition of the domed five-story Greek Revival School that was constructed in the 1850's. Recent commercial revitalization includes the Investment Tax Credit rehabilitation of the structure located on the northeast corner of North Bellaire Avenue and Frankfort Avenue called Arts Space. It houses art galleries, a restaurant and a dance studio. Another renovation on the south side of Frankfort Avenue houses an art studio and residence. 3. Clifton Neighborhood Profile a. Demographic Change Clifton neighborhood had a population of 4,167 persons in 1980. This represents a decline of 17.8% or 905 persons since 1970. This was not a result of dwelling unit loss, rather a decrease in household size and a higher vacancy rate. Occupied dwelling units declined from 1,786 to 1,746 units from 1970 to 1980 while household size in those occupied units declined from 2.84 persons per unit in 1970 to 2.39 persons in 1980. A positive aspect of the shifts occurring between 1970 and 1980 involves a 5.3 percent (47 unit) increase in the number of owner occupied units in the area. Fewer rental units were occupied and the 87 unit loss in occupied rental units generated the 1980 increase in vacancy (7.4%) over the 1970 rate (5.1%). Furthermore, while any population loss in an area iS cause for concern, Clifton's rate of loss (17.8%) approximated the rate experienced by the City of Louisville as a whole during the decade (17.4%). The population in Clifton has probably grown slightly since 1980 due to the construction of the Crescent Springs complex and the apartments on North Clifton Avenue. The total population is probably close to 4,300 persons. The total dwelling unit count in the neighborhood is probably close to 1,960 units today, allowing for losses elsewhere in the neighborhood. 1 In tandem with the drops in household size experienced in the I Clifton neighborhood from 1970 to 1980, there has been a sharp drop in the number and percent of persons under age 18 living there. In 1970 there were 1,440 persons (28.4% of the population) under age 18 in Clifton. In 1980 this number had dropped to 876 persons (21% of the population). The percent of persons age 62 and over in 1970 (20.5%) and age 65 and over in 1980 (19.1%) was relatively constant by contrast. (The block data used to generate these numbers used differing age categories in 1970 and 1980). About 62% of the population loss in the Clifton neighborhood for the 1970 to 1980 period can be attri- buted to losses of persons under age 18. The 1970 to 1980 losses in population due to decreases in the number of persons under age 18 are not unique to the Clifton neighborhood nor are they cause for alarm. The "baby boom" generation moved out of their parents' households during the decade, resulting in household size declines throughout the nation. Louisville experienced a 35.4% decline in the number of persons under age 18 from 1970 to 1980 and Clifton's decline was slightly higher at 39%. This can be explained in part by the low number of blacks in the neighborhood (3.7% in 1970 and 4.7% in 1980 versus 24% in 1970 and 28.2% in 1980 in the City . of Louisville) who collectively have higher birth rates than whites. b. Socio-Economic Profile The percent of the population age 25 and over that had gradu- ated from high school in the Clifton neighborhood was lower than the average for all of Louisville (51.6% and 55.5% respectively) but Clifton had a slightly higher percent of persons with four or more years of college (13.8% versus 13.2% for the city overall). Unemployment rate for Clifton neighborhood was 9.9% in 1980, the same as the City of Louisville's average rate. The 1980 work force was predominantly employed in white collar jobs (50%) followed by blue collar (29.3%) and service jobs (20.7%). This ratio of employment types did not differ strongly from the averages for Louisville as a whole. Two or more workers were present in nearly 49% of the families in the neighborhood, slightly higher than the city's average of 47% for 1979. Per capita income for Clifton neighborhood was $5,611 in 1979, only 89% of the average for all of Louisville. Average family and household incomes in Clifton were also lower than the City of Louisville averages in 1979. Clifton families had an average income of $14,941 which was 78% of the City's average ($19,061). Households in Clifton averaged $13,244 in 1979 which was nearly 84% of the City's average ($15,784). Only Clifton's unrelated individuals* had average incomes higher than the City of Louisville's average ($8,272 and $7,820

*An unrelated individual is (1) a householder living alone or with nonrelatives only, (2) a household member who is not related to the householder or (3) a person living in group quarters who is not an inmate of an institution. respectively). The low overall incomes in the neighborhood are also reflected in the percent of persons who had incomes below poverty level in 1979. Clifton had 17.3% of its population, 704 persons, living below poverty level. This was a lower rate than existed city-wide in Louisville (19.3%). Income levels for 1987 are estimated at $8,500 per capita, $22,500 for average family income and $19,900 for average household income based on shifts in average annual income for employees covered by unemployment insurance in Jefferson County. c. Housing Occupancy Characteristics There was only a slight gain in dwelling units in Clifton from 1970 to 1980, four units to 1,886 units. From 1960 to 1970 there was a 158 unit increase and for the 1950 to 1960 period a 39 unit increase. Owner occupied units decreased as a percent of all units between 1950 and 1970 from 56% to 46.8% but this trend reversed during the 1970 to 1980 period climbing to 49.2% of the units. Renter occupied units peaked at 48.1% in 1970 and decreased to 43.4% of the units in 1980. The shift to owner occupancy is a positive sign for the neighborhood. A negative factor, however, is the growth in vacancy rates in the neighborhood from .9% in 1950, 2.6% in 1960, 5.1% in 1970 to 7.4% in 1980. The average value of owner occupied dwelling units was $22,925 in 1980 and the median value was $19,900. Louisville had an average value of owner occupied units of $33,100 and median value of $27,200 in 1980. Rents in Clifton averaged $151 in 1980 and had a median value of $155. The average rent in the City of Louisville was lower in 1980 ($1431, as was the median ($140). A combination of higher than average rents and lower than average unit values may be contributing to the trend for increased rates of owner occupancy as rental units are pur- chased and converted to single homes. 4. Analysis a. Residents' Perceptions The residents of a neighborhood serve as an important source of information about the problems and positive features of their area. The daily routine of their lives brings them into contact with features of the neighborhood, concerns and opinions of their neighbors, and a feel for the attitude that the area has about its future. In addition to the ongoing input of the Task Force, a group identification session held at the November 10, 1988 public meeting for the Clifton neighborhood generated broad listings of the neighborhood residents' perceptions about the area. Approximately 60 persons were in attendance, including Planning Commission and Neighborhood Services staff. An explanation of the "nominal group" survey process is included in Appendix 111. Three groups were formed and asked to generate responses to the following questions: - What are the positive features of the Clifton Neighborhood that are most important to you? - What are the negative features of the Clifton Neighbor- hood? The responses are detailed in Tables A through D of Appendix I11 for each of the three groups. A brief discussion of the results follows. Specific areas of concern identified in this process are noted in the appropriate section of this plan. The three groups had three separate opinions about the most important group of positive features in the neighborhood. Group 1 identified most strongly with the positive elements of the physical environment (self contained neighborhood, architecture, older area with beautiful trees) in the neighborhood and its accessibility. Group 2 identified most strongly with the positive elements of the social environment (good demographic mix, population density) and the transportation system. Group 3 felt most strongly about the positive aspects of commercial land use (new businesses opening, art galleries) in the area and the physical environment. The listings of negative features also generated separate opinions among the groups about the most important negative aspects of the neighborhood. Group 1 identified elements of the physical environment (including deteriorated dwellings and vacant businesses) as having the greatest negative impact on the neighborhood followed by the negative impacts of commercial land use (a lack of restaurants, undesirable businesses). Group 2 identified the negative elements of the physical environment (litter, air pollution, poorly maintained property) as most important to them as well, followed by negative elements of the social environment (their first choice for positive aspects) including a lack of neighborhood identity and block watch groups. The response of Group 3 was that negative aspects of the transportation system (speeding and a lack of sidewalks) were most important to them followed by problems with residential land use (abandoned and undermaintained homes). b. Land Use The Clifton neighborhood is a predominantly residential, mixed use area. Single family homes occupy 44% of the land area, duplexes about 5% and apartments about 10%. Apartment and condominium complexes represent some of the more recent developments within the neighborhood. There are substantial amounts of vacant land (nearly 13% of the total area of the neighborhood) but the development potential of much of this land is strongly constrained by access limitations and bedrock. As a mixed use neighborhood there are several areas where land use conflicts occur. The mix of small lot commercial uses along Frankfort Avenue, industrial operations on the south side of Frankfort Avenue and a car repair operation at Frankfort Avenue and Pope Street, all in close proximity to residential uses, create conflicts involving traffic, noise, odor and visual nuisances. Shopping areas along Frankfort Avenue are in need of improvement and the eight vacant store fronts (at the time of the land use survey) and other noncommercial structures along Frankfort detract from the neighborhood character. Physical improvements, rear lot to frontage areas and parking area landscaping could improve the appearances of the occupied stores. The commercial areas along Brownsboro Road are more modern and incorporate parking within the developments. However, little provision has been made for pedestrians either within the developments or in the approaches from the neighborhood. This is a serious shortcoming given the large numbers of blind and visually impaired persons living in the area and dependent on walking to reach the facilities. Furthermore, the Brownsboro Road commercial area lacks cohesive screening of adjacent residential uses and uniform landscaping. c. Zoning Existing zoning in the Clifton neighborhood was compared with existing land use to identify conflicts and inconsistencies. Nonconforming Uses. Nonconforming uses are land use activities of a type or intensity that are not currently permitted in the zoning district where they are located. Nonconforming uses are uses that were in existence prior to the establishment of zoning, or prior to a zoning change or a change of permitted uses allowed under the zoning district classification. Although not in accordance with zoning regulations, nonconforming uses may legally continue. The expansion of such use activities is not permitted. Five separate types of nonconforming use activities existed in the Clifton neighborhood at the time of this plan's preparation. No evidence of illegality is indicated by this assessment as the activities in question appear to have existed before zoning was established in 1931, resulted from shifts in the uses permitted within a zoning district, or were created by areawide rezonings. I Commercial uses in residential zones are one type of noncon- I forming use that occurs in the study area. There were six uses I of this type scattered throughout the study area. Most are apparently uses that existed prior to the zoning ordinance. A second type of commercial nonconforming use is retail commercial in an industrial zone. Only one of these exists in Clifton. Residential use in an industrial zone is similarly prohibited (5 examples in Clifton). Both of these instances of nonconforming use are a result of shifts that occurred in the mid-1960's from a pyramidal zoning classification system (where higher intensity zoning classifications allow all lower intensity uses) to use-exclusive zones. There are also seven industrial uses in commercial zones and five in residential zones including the Printing House for the Blind. Recent rezonings account for the nonconforming status of all these uses, except for the Printing House for the Blind and Hoerter and Son's (meat packers), both of which predate zoning. Many of the other industrial uses, nonconforming as a result of downzoning, also predate original zoning. Residential Uses in Commercial Zones. Under the Zoning Dis- trict Reaulations. residential uses are permitted in commercial zones asdlong as they conform to the density and floor area limits. About 13% of the land area in Clifton is zoned for commercial use with 4% C-1 and 9% C-2. Only about 6% of the land area was used commercially indicating the magnitude of residential and institutional use within the commercial zones. Frankfort Avenue and Brownsboro Road from Mellwood east to the alley between Pope and State Streets are the locations where most of the residential use in commercial zones occurs. The potential for commercial use is a destablizing influence for residential uses in a commercial zone. Neither residential nor commercial use is spared the negative effects of vacancy, dilapidation or abandonment that sometimes occur in these areas. Residential Density. The two single family residential zoning districts (R-1 and R-5). three multi-family residential zones (R-5A, R-6 and R-7) and'three office/resid&ntial districts (OR-2, OR-3 and OTF) found in Clifton neighborhood permit different residential densities. A summary of the permitted density within these zones is provided with the map of existing zoning. A more detailed block face analysis of zoning district permitted and developed densities was developed for the proposed zoning change recommendations map, Figure I-G. The recommendations, aside from areas recommended for R-1 Single Family Residential, reflect the lowest intensity residential zoning district that the existing developed density conforms under. d. Housing The housing supply was essentially stable in Clifton during the 1970-1980 decade. The total number of dwelling units in Clifton grew only by four units between 1970 and 1980. Since 1980 the construction of a condominium complex (Crescent Springs) and an apartment complex along the west side of North Clifton Avenue across from the Oxford Center has boosted the total number of units in the area by about 100 units to an estimated 1,960 total units in the neighborhood. New construction of multi-family units has offset unit losses elsewhere through conversions of apartment units to single family homes or fewer units. Relatively small amounts of land are easily available for development. The construction of an apartment complex on Payne Street and reconstruction of a house that burned on Coral Avenue are the only pending projects. A shift to higher rates of owner occupancy was experienced in the 1970 to 1980 period reversing a trend evident for the 1950 to 1970 period. This is a positive factor for revitalizing the area. At the same time (1970 to 1980) dwelling unit vacancy rates have also increased in the neighborhood, primarily in apartment units, but still a troublesome sign for the area. Exterior structural conditions are moderate to good in the Clifton neighborhood. Only a very small number of units were in serious states of decline as the summary of structural conditions in Table 1-3 shows. Generally the western portion of the neighborhood from Haldeman Avenue to Mellwood Avenue exhibited the highest percentage of units, that while sound, needed major repairs. The large number of homes in this area needing major repair is reason for concern. If corrective actions can be taken they may prevent a trend of housing decline and disinvestment. The area east of Haldeman Avenue includes some of the oldest housing in the neighborhood. Individual efforts at housing rehabilitation have improved conditions in several areas. The Clifton neighborhood is well served by schools, churches, bus service and neighborhood shopping facilities. The area's close proximity to the Central Business District and easy access via expressway system provide strong incentives for persons working downtown to locate there. The mix of afford: able housing in the area is diverse and while often times needing major repairs, is lower priced than comparable homes in nearby neighborhoods such as Crescent Hill or the Highlands. While predominantly single family residential, a wide range of housing types, including duplexes, converted unit multi-family, apartment complexes and elderly housing units are in the area. e. Neighborhood Commercial Demand Neighborhood retail commercial uses serve a limited geographic area. This allows an evaluation of the adequacy of neighborhood serving commercial uses based on the socio-economic characteristics of the residents making use of the facilities. Neighborhood commercial uses provide goods that are needed on a weekly or even daily basis. Generally speaking residents of an area will purchase such goods in local stores if the goods are available at the appropriate price and quality. Good commer- cia1 areas can form a sound core for a neighborhood and enhance the desirability of residential stock. The 1988 survey found fifty-one neighborhood serving commercial uses with approximately 125,400 square feet of floor area. Using data on average sales volume per square foot of retail space for the various categories of use found in the neighborhood (stated in 1979 dollars), an estimate of $17.8 million in annual sales was generated for the businesses in the neighborhood. Demand for neighborhood commercial use is based on estimates of total personal consumption expenditure for non-durable goods, (other than gasoline) particularly food. The total personal consumption expenditure for non-durable goods other than gasoline for the entire 1980 population of the three Census Tracts that make up Clifton neighborhood (includes approximately 3,881 persons outside the neighborhood boundaries) was only $9.2 million. However, more populous and affluent Census Tracts adjacent to the neighborhood also use its shopping areas. An estimate of personal consumption expenditures for an eight Census Tract area bounded roughly by the Ohio Riyer, Zprn Avenue, Grinstead Drive, Beargrass Creek and including parts of Irish Hill and Butchertown neighborhoods, generates an estimated $32.4 million in non-durable expenditures other than gasoline. While some of this area overlaps with additional neighborhood commercial areas so that residents are likely to shop elsewhere, a substantial portion probably finds the commercial areas in Clifton (particularly along Brownsboro Road) the most convenient area to shop.

The analysis does not show a shortfall in the amount of neigh- I borhood commercial serving Clifton but rather that the commercial uses serve a larger area than the neighborhood. Further- more, because this portion of the City of Louisville is not likely to exhibit strong population growth over the next couple of decades, (based on projectioins in the 1986 Comprehensive Plan: Background Information) it is unlikely that major expansions of neighborhood commercial use will occur in the area. A strong continued support population and income base will exist in the area and the commercial districts should face l a very viable future. I The primary complaint from residents during the issue identification session involving neighborhood commercial uses related to the lack of good restaurants in the neighborhoods. There are 14 restaurants in the immediate area. Many of the restaurants in the area are of the fast food or short order type but a few are traditional restaurant facilities. A high rate of turnover in restaurant ownership has been exhibited in the area. Other negative features mentioned in the issue identification sessions that relate to the neighborhood commercial areas include weak/unfocused commercial on Brownsboro Road and , I Frankfort Avenue, a lack of competing groceries, the unappealing appearance of the Kroger complex, and undesirable businesses, primarily bars. f. Parks and Recreation The Clifton neighborhood contains two parks and is served by four parks, Cherokee, Crescent Hill, Eva Bandman and Thruston outside the neighborhood. The level of service offered by recreational facilities considers two types of parks, "neighborhood park/playgroundsn and "community park/play fields." Neighborhood Park/Playground. This category includes any park with less than 12.5 acres of land. Smaller parks in this category are typically referred to as miniparks. Generally speaking this type of park includes playground equipment, benches and at least one active sports activity area. Addi- tionally it is desirable for such a facility to provide safe convenient access for pedestrians, particularly children and provide areas for passive recreation and unsupervised play. Both of the parks within Clifton are considered neighborhood parks. Bingham Minipark is the larger of the two with 4.3 acres of land. It has basketball courts, playground equipment, restrooms, small athletic fields, walkway and a wading pool. Bingham Minipark is located in a small wooded valley at the rear of lots facing Coral and Haldeman Avenues on the south side of Brownsboro Road. This small park can be approached from Coral Avenue or Brownsboro Road. Sidewalks are found along Brownsboro Road and on the opposite side of Coral Avenue from the park. A stop light at Haldeman Avenue's intersection with Brownsboro Road facilitates access from the north. The second park, Clifton Minipark, is a fairly recent addition to the neighborhood. Acquired and developed in 1976 with Community Development Block Grant monies, this small (1.2 acre) park is located in the southwest corner of the neighborhood off Arlington Avenue. Sidewalks do not connect directly with the park but do exist on the opposite side of Arlington Avenue. The park has basketball courts, tennis courts, benches, playground equipment and picnic grills available. The park's close proximity to 1-64 is a detracting factor due to noise. Traffic on Arlington Avenue is not a problem. To be considered adequately served by neighborhood park/playground facilities a resident should live within one-half mile of a facility. When examined for service adequacy against this one-half mile standard only a portion of the southeast corner of the neighborhood was found to lack adequate facilities. This is an area that may be served in part by the open space and playground facilities at Barret Middle School; the area southeast of Bickels Lane is within one-half mile of Cherokee I Park. Only about 150 homes are not within the desired proximity and they are less than one-tenth mile out of the preferred area. Negative responses from the issue identification survey involving parks include a concern that there were not enough play areas, ineffective use of the park areas that existed and a need for better play equipment in Bingham Minipark. At the same time Bingham Minipark was felt to be an important positive feature of the neighborhood. Community Park/Play Field. This category includes any park that contains from 12.5 to 100 acres of land. Parks in this category are generally oriented to vehicular access as well as pedestrian access. The service radius for adequate service by a community park/playground is one mile. There are no facilities of this size within the Clifton neighborhood but the area is adequately served by the four nearby facilities, Cherokee, Crescent Hill, Eva Bandman, and Thruston Parks. Other Recreation Facilities. Non-Metro Parks recreation facilities in Clifton Neiqhborhood include the Franklin Ele- mentary, Ursuline Pitt school and the Kentucky School for the Blind. A Class I11 bikeway crosses the neighborhood along Payne Street. A scenic easement exists along Grinstead Drive; this open space preserve is not open to the public. 1 5. Government and Non-Government Actions The Clifton neighborhood's development has been influenced by actions taken by public agencies and private groups. The major actions are summarized in this section of the plan. The Louisville and Frankfort turnpike and Louisville and Frankfort Railroad were two of the earliest actions impacting the urbanization of the Clifton neighborhood. In 1855, the Kentucky School for the Blind moved to its present location from a West Chestnut Street location. A ring of fortification built late in the Civil War included a fort (Elstner) on the hill where Vernon, Bellaire and Emerald Avenues intersect, 1 overlooking the area where Brownsboro Road passes in front of I Krogers. I I Zoning did not come into effect in Louisville until 1931. Clifton's early zoning recognized an existing land use pattern i and limited much of the northeast corner of the neighborhood to single family homes. A broad band of industrial zoning was created along the railroad on the south side of Frankfort and extended into the commercial strip along Frankfort Avenue. With few exceptions the current commercial zoning districts

'substantial improvements to facilities in Bingham Park will soon be installed. Refer to Metro Parks letter from Bob Kirchdorfer, dated August 22, 1989 in Appendix IV. along Frankfort were established at that time or derived from the industrial zones at a later period. All the current commercial zones except the section from Mount Holly to Vernon along the south side of Brownsboro Road were also established in 1931. Most of the balance of the area was zoned for duplex residential except for the Kentucky School for the Blind and a strip along Frankfort and Bellaire Avenue to State Street zoned for apartments. Subsequent rezonings developed the numerous apartment districts and commercial developments outside the boundaries established by the 1931 zoning and created the legally nonconforming industrial uses that are found in the neighborhood. Less permissive, non-pyramidal, zoning districts adopted in the mid-sixties created the nonconforming residential uses in industrial zones. The Kentucky School for the Blind plays an important role in the neighborhood and creates some special demands for pedestrian facilities. A unique population of visually impaired and blind persons reside in the Clifton neighborhood. This state- run facility is also associated with the largest employer in the neighborhood, the American Printing House for the Blind. The school facilities also serve as a meeting location for the neighborhood. Another group active in the neighborhood is the United Crescent Hill Ministries located at 1860 Frankfort Avenue. Formed to provide services throughout Clifton and Crescent Hill after the 1974 tornado, this group represents 21 churches and provides a variety of community services. These include senior citizen meal programs, emergency assistance, and child care. The senior citizen programs receive funds from a variety of public and private sources including the City of Louisville, KIPDA, Jefferson County and the member churches. Much of Clifton has been designated as a National Register Historic District. The Louisville Landmarks Commission conducted the research for the nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. This designation recognizes the unique architecture of the area and provides limited protection from federal fund expenditure that would have a negative impact on the area. The designation also creates financial incentives for appropriate rehabilitation of income-producing structures in the area. A recent ordinance provides for public notice and a 30 day waiting period for demolition of National Register listed properties. Recent sign regulations prohibit outdoor adver- tising signs within a National Register Historic District's boundary or depending on sign size, within 250 or 500 feet of a National Register Historic District's boundary. Community Development Block Grant money has been used for the 1976 acquisition and improvement of Clifton Minipark. Bingham Minipark was renovated in 1978 with CDBG money. The play areas and restrooms were improved and a bridge was constructed to allow handicapped access. Since 1980 CDBG funds have been used for only one project in the neighborhood, pedestrian improvements including the extension of new stairs from Vernon Avenue to Brownsboro Road and new sidewalks in other low and moderate income parts of the neighborhood. 6. Summary of Problems and Issues 1. There is a lack of good restaurants in the neighborhood. 2. Some commercial facilities along Frankfort Avenue are not adequately maintained.

3. Existing zoning would permit substantially higher residential densities in the neighborhood. 4. There is a minor shortage of neighborhood park land in the eastern part of the neighborhood. lother parks are not developed to their full potential. 5. Deteriorated dwellings detract from the quality of the neighborhood, particularly in the area west of Haldeman Avenue. 6. Vacant land, businesses and residential structures detract from the quality of the neighborhood. 7. Air pollution in the neighborhood is a problem due to interspersed industries and others nearby. 8. Loss of trees as a result of trimming around utility lines is a problem. The trees are an important resource that need to be protected through maintenance and limited utility related trimming. 9. Trash, high weeds, overgrown sidewalks and other poorly attended landscaping are problems in the neighborhood. 10. Crime and vandalism are problems in the neighborhood. Repeat offenders remain on the streets. Block watches are lacking in the area. Teenagers need curfews and something for them to do to keep them from getting in trouble. 11. Dogs, a lack of leash law observation and noise control are problems in the neighborhoods. 12. Improved street lighting is needed in several areas of the neighborhood.

'~etro Parks feels Bingham Park should be limited in its development potential for aesthetic reasons. Refer to Metro Parks letter from Bob Kirchdorfer dated August 22, 1989 in Appendix IV. 13. The quality of electric service in the neighborhood is 1 I poor, there are frequent outages. I 14. Drainage problems exist in some areas. R. PROJECTIONS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS This section of the Clifton neighborhood plan develops a projection of future conditions in the neiqhborhood based on current levels of public investment and physical trends. This is a projection of conditions that can be reasonably forecast for the neiqhborhood if recommendations to address problems facing the neiqhborhood are not addressed (a "null" alternative). The projections are followed by a listing of relevant guidelines from the Comprehensive Plan. These guidelines are general policies intended to state desired future conditions in Louisville and Jefferson County. The impacts of the "null" projection on Clifton should be evaluated against the "desired" conditions listed in these guidelines. 1. Projected Future Conditions Existing development will continue to dominate the land use pattern of the neighborhood. However, it would be likely that . the land along 1-64 would be developed into a "Crescent Springs" type of condominium or rental facility and that this area may become a new "neighborhood within a neighborhood" owing to the physical barriers between this area and the balance of Clifton. This development and development of scattered sites throughout the neiqhborhood are likely to occur at densities above 10 units per acre and to involve potentially 400 units. Gross density in the neighborhood (all acreage) will rise under this scenario from 4.6 units per acre, to 5.6 units. However, net density of the residentially developed area would remain constant at about 9.9 units per acre. This is a medium development density according for the Comprehensive Plan Guideline R-6. Household size may stabilize in the area as the 1980 rate (2.4 persons per unit) was relatively low and the number of owner occupied units will continue to increase. Housing conditions in the neiqhborhood may deteriorate with owners of the larger homes finding costs associated with rehabilitation too high. Areas with smaller homes on the western edge of the neighborhood may be more affordable to rehabilitate but in some areas I the overall decline may dampen individuals inclination to make such investments. Further, rehabilitation of these homes depends on a market for residential units with less than 1,000 square feet of floor space and little or no yard space. The northwest corner of the neiqhborhood may be impacted most severely by this decline based on the concentration of "c" rated housing units in this area and the proximity of nuisance/conflicting land uses. If current trends continue the commercial strip along Frankfort Avenue is not likely to improve in a consistent manner although individual rehabilitations may improve spot locations. Overall environmental conditions, landscaping, streetscape, sidewalk litter and parking problems will continue to detract from reaching the full potential of this area. Occasional undesir- I able business sitings in the C-2 zones may discourage existing businesses or those seeking to locate there. Restaurants are likely to remain difficult to attract or keep in the area. Parking needs may result in loss of non-commercial structures or poorly utilized commercial structures in this area. 2. Comprehensive Plan Recommendations The following guidelines from the Comprehensive Plan are relevant to the future conditions projected for Clifton neighborhood. E-10 Develop buildings and lot improvements on sites with slopes that were or will be greater than 12 percent, only if it is conclusively demonstrated that: a) adequate measures will be taken to prevent landslides and slope failure and b) adequate drainage control measures will be implemented to prevent erosion and flooding of adjacent lands and degra- dation of streams and c)* on-lot wastewater disposal systems, if proposed for the new development, will function adequately to protect the public health and water quality and

d) grading and cut-and-fill operations will be minimized and e) natural landforms and vegetation will be preserved to the extent possible. E-11 Develop buildings and lot improvements on sites with slopes that were or will be greater than 20 percent, only if steep hillside construction techniques will be utilized, based on the following professional engineering reports: a) erosion and sedimentation control plans indicating pre- construction techniques and future maintenance measures and b) drainage control plans indicating drainage patterns and on-site storm water retention and C) geologic data indicating the strength, bearing capacity and stability of sub-surface conditions and d) soils analysis indicating slope characteristics, soil stability and suitability of soils for on-lot disposal of wastewater, if proposed for the new development and

*Element of the guideline, not suggested for application in the Clifton neighborhood.

2 6 e) grading plans indicating existing grade, proposed grade and areas of cut-and-fill. E-16 Take all reasonable actions to reduce air pollution from stationary sources. E-19 Preserve buildings, sites and districts that are recognized as having historic or architectural value. E-25 Assist the preservation of historic districts and sites by: a) acquiring, when feasible, buildings and sites or easements for public use and b) utilizing government funds for historic preservation to leverage other funding sources and c) providing technical advice to the private sector on seeking funding sources, determining appropriate re-uses, formulating rehabilitation strategies and disseminating information regarding federal tax incentives. T-7 Provide adequate access to, from and through all development for the proper functioning of the streets, walkways, bikeways and transit systems for emergency vehicles by linking the interior roadway, walkway, bikeway and transit systems with systems already built or planned in the surrounding area. T-11 Provide off-street parking and loading of sufficient quantity and adequate design for the type and intensity of development, for the mode of access to the development and for its users. R-1 Protect residential neighborhoods from adverse impacts of proposed development and land use changes. R-4 Avoid residential development that has a significantly different size, height, mass or scale from adjacent development. R-5 Develop residential densities that are compatible with adjacent residential areas and other adjacent land uses. 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 housinq types and costs for new housing; C) upgrading existing housing and d) keeping overall housinq costs as low as possible without sacrificing basic health, safety and welfare objectives. R-17 Ensure that new land uses are compatible in terms of height, bulk, scale, architecture and placement on the lot if they are to be located in or next to residential areas of recognized historic or architectural significance. C-2 Design all commercial development: a) to include, where appropriate, circulation patterns for pedestrians, bicycles and handicapped people and b) to provide, where appropriate, trees, landscaping, benches, bus stops and other site amenities and

C) to promote a good transition between adjacent buildings and land uses in terms of size, height and materials and d) to prevent signs from being a visual nuisance or a safety hazard to vehicular traffic. C-3 Provide buffering, screening, separation or other techniques to mitigate nuisances when a commercial land use will produce or is associated with such nuisances as: a) automobile lights, outdoor lighting or illuminated signs or b) loud noise or C) odors, smoke, automobile exhaust or other noxious smells or d) dust and dirt or e) litter, junk or outdoor storage or

f) visual nuisances. If current trends continue some of the guidelines listed above will be met by new development. However T-7 and T-11 will not be met if current development patterns continue. Some historic homes and non-residential structures will be lost in the absence of a cohesive strategy to rehabilitate the area as individual property owners seek their own "best use" for their property. Most of the potential apartment development would be strongly separated from the existing residential areas, but reconstruction or infill on the smaller vacant lots could be incompatible with the development on adjacent sites. Further, pressure to develop marginal lots could lead to conflicts with E-10/11 as sloped land is brought into development creating drainage, I erosion and access problems. Commercial pedestrian access and off-street parking problems will likely worsen and nuisances associated with commercial uses will likely increase conflicting with guidelines C-2 and C-3. C. ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Recommended strategies for the Clifton neighborhood are developed in this section of the plan. The problems and issues identified by analysis of existing conditions, survey of the residents, and discussions with the Task Force members indicate aspects of the neighborhood needing remedial action. Several alternative strategies were generated for each issue needing to be addressed by the neighborhood. The alternatives were considered and discussed by the Task Force with input from the Planning Commission, Neighborhood Services, Public Works and Landmarks omm mission staff persons. The best alternative or combinations of alternatives was selected through this process. Alternative Strategies Issues and the related alternatives are presented below. A rationale statement explaining the chosen alternative follows. This section concludes with the recommended land use plan. a. Issue: There is a lack of good* restaurants in the neighborhood. Restaurants offering table service have been in short supply and have a high turnover rate in the neighborhood.

Alternatives: I) Meet with area restaurateurs and encourage them through a market profile to locate an outlet in the neighborhood. 2) Prepare a listing of available vacant structures/spaces for such activities in Clifton. 3) Do nothing and assume a quality restaurant will locate in the area on its own. Alternatives 1 and 2 are recommended. The Task Force felt that it was important to work at retaining good restaurants in the neighborhood and keeping commercial structures occupied. The high rate of restaurant turnovers in the area indicates that, despite current activity (one planned and one open restaurant), this problem may recur in the future. A good place to dine was considered to be a strong amenity for the neighborhood. Further, filling vacant commercial structures as quickly as possible was felt to be important for maintaining the properties and in preventing negative impacts on adjacent properties. This is of particular concern along Frankfort Avenue where vacant structures can quickly become eyesores that collect litter.

*Note: A new restaurant has opened and another is planned for the neighborhood. For purposes of this plan a good restaurant is considered as one providing table service, not a fast food restaurant or short order grill. The market profile and vacant structure list was felt to be a strong tool to accomplish the goals of the Task Force. Nearby restaurants were already drawing on the Clifton area population for support 'I (K.T.'s, Tumbleweed, and Pat's Steak House for example) but loca- I tions within the neighborhood were felt to be lacking. Alternative 3 was not selected although it had been discussed: there was concern that alternatives 1 and 2 might create undue competition for a recently opened restaurant and two proposed restaurant facilities. This concern was dismissed as it was felt that restaurant turnover I would result in the area anyway and the shortage of good restaurant facilities would recur. b. Issue: There is a potential for undesirable businesses and nuisance uses that have created problems in the past to locate in the Clifton neighborhood. Alternatives: 1) Create a special zoning classification to prevent the establishment of undesirable uses. 2) Business and residents should meet with owners of problem businesses and encourage changes to remove problems (operating hours, clamping down on rowdy individuals, etc.) . 3) Rezone commercial areas from C-2 to C-1 to reduce the potential for future problems from being established without a rezoning review. 4) Do nothing and hope the problem will self correct. Alternatives 2 and 3 were recommended. The two-fold approach of business representatives "policing' their own and residents trying to work with businesses to let them know the problems they are creating was felt to provide for a better understanding of residents' expectations among business operators. This also allows the adjacent businesses to shoulder some of the responsibility for cleaning up existing business nuisances. Nuisances include dangerous bars, auto repair operations and late night operations. The rezoning of C-2 areas to C-1 was felt necessary to prevent future nuisance uses from locating in the neighborhood without a public hearing. This will require a lot by lot review of existing uses and their zoning requirements to prevent creating non-conforming uses. Alternative 1 was discussed but dismissed as it was felt to require substantial effort to establish a new zoning district or overlay zone and apply it in the neighborhood without substantial benefits over using an existing tool; rezoning to C-1. Doing nothing (alternative 4) was not considered an adequate response. c. Issue: The historic character of the neighborhood is not being maintained. Alternatives: 1) Continue to provide educational programs about the historic qualities of the neighborhood and features that need to be protected. 2) Develop a local restoration program that provides financial incentives for proper rehabilitation.

3) Require public improvements to conform with the I historic character of the area. 4) Develop an awards program to give recognition to the restoration of buildings in the area. 5) Prepare design studies showing recommended improvements to specific homes or blockfaces in the neighborhood. All five alternatives are supported by the task force. Educational programs and design studies can provide residents with a better understanding of the design features present in the area and show them how restoration can increase the value of their investment and improve appearances. The low income characteristics of many of the residents indicates a need for subsidy programs to cover the costs of restoration.

Public improvements should compliment the restoration efforts in the I neighborhood. Projects should be reviewed against design standards for the historic district to make sure they conform to the character of the neighborhood. Finally, persons who have made notable contributions to the restoration of a structure or an area of the Clifton neighborhood should receive recognition for their achievements by the Clifton Community Council. These "award winning" projects can also serve as illustra- tions of the benefits associated with proper restoration. d. Issue: Some commercial facilities do not maintain their facades along Frankfort Avenue. Alternatives: 1) Create a more effective business organization to deal with problems along Frankfort Avenue. iI 2) Develop a design plan for facade improvement. 3) Improve the streetscape in commercial areas (improvement of public spaces: sidewalks, street trees, condition of alleys/pavement).

4) Educate the public about available programs for I commercial rehabilitation.

I 5) Create a local historic landmark designation or a design overlay district for the area. All five alternatives were recommended by the Task Force. A more effective business organization was felt to be essential to the development of a design plan and its implementation. The business organization was also felt to be essential to creating a unified streetscape improvement program and individual site improvements. Some preliminary steps toward establishing a business group along Frankfort Avenue have already been taken. The interests of these businesses are as diverse as their building designs and existing site utilization characteristics. Office for Economic Development facilitators will be the primary source of information about available commercial rehabilitation programs. The City of Louisville also has low interest loan programs for commercial sidewalk repairs. (See Appendix I1 for details.) Developing a local historic district or design overlay district was seen as a way to minimize conflicts with the design of new structures and set standards for rehabilitation work. Individual structures meriting historic preservation should be restored to original form within the corridor when possible. Other structures should conform to design standards. e. Issue: Existing zoning permits substantially higher residential densities than exist in the neighborhood. Alternatives: 1) Rezone blockfaces with significant apartment uses to the zoning district appropriate for the i existing density. i 2) Rezone predominantly single family blockfaces from apartment to single family or two-family zoning districts. Both alternatives 1 and 2 are recommended. These reflect a desire to limit the growth of parking problems, prevent new apartments from being established in predominantly single family areas and prevent razing of existing low density apartments for high density facilities permitted by the existing zoning. Vacant land in developed areas would be recommended for rezoning to zoning districts that reflect adjacent development patterns. The undeveloped property along 1-64 owned by the State of Kentucky would be rezoned to R-1 based on the recommendation of Issue f., below. Concern was voiced about the difficulty that maintaining large single family homes might present in terms of cost and marketability if they were rezoned for single family use. It was felt they might be more appropriately used as multiple unit dwellings and that the existing zoning would permit that choice. This was rejected based on the potential conversion to apartment occupancy without neighborhood review and the potential parking problems that such conversions were perceived to generate. If such conversions required rezoning it was felt the neighborhood would have a better tool for controlling off-site impacts. A residential zone permitting duplexes was also considered as a possible tool to protect marketability of the larger structures. f. Issue: There is a minor shortage of neighborhood park land in the southeastern part of the neighborhood. Other parks are not used effectively. Alternatives: 1) Encourage creation of a neighborhood park in the southeastern portion of the neighborhood. 2) Provide additional programs and facilities in the existing parks.

3) Utilize the Kentucky School for the Blind and Franklin School facilities as neighborhood recreation facilities. 4) Develop better access to Cherokee Park and the developing Waterfront of the Ohio River. 5) Preserve state-owned property along 1-64 as open space. Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 are recommended. Adding new facilities and programs in the existing parks is considered more appropriate than creating a new neighborhood-level park. The Franklin School site and Kentucky School for the Blind would have the potential for more widespread use if noise and liability issues could be addressed. Developing better access to Cherokee Park is of interest particularly for pedestrians. Currently one must exit the neighborhood east on Frankfort Avenue and take Peterson Avenue south to Grinstead Drive and then west to the park. A trail or sidewalk facility connecting the southeast corner of the neighborhood to Grinstead Drive would substantially reduce the distances involved. This could possibly follow the South Ewing right-of-way through its closed portion. Better access to the Waterfront could be developed through working with the Butchertown neighborhood to provide sidewalks and improvements along Ohio Street. The Waterfront development along the Ohio River is expected to provide new recreational opportunities for the Clifton neighborhood. The concern that the State of Kentucky might sell property along 1-64 for development generated the alternative 5 recommendation. Zoned R-6 Multi-Family Residential, this area could have 17.4 dwellings per acre if fully developed. If used for a park or open space with a walkway it could serve as a link between Cherokee Park and the neighborhood. The property was acquired under the 1964 Highway Beautification Act and is subject to federal approval of any activities taking place there. ~lternative1 was rejected because a small facility was felt to create more maintenance problems and be less desirable than seeking better programs for the existing facilities. The land along 1-64 would be classified as a "community" park or as an extension of Cherokee Park. g. Issue: Deteriorated dwellings detract from the quality of the neighborhood particularly in the area west of Haldeman Avenue. Alternatives: 1) Encourage publicly assisted housing rehabilitation programs.

2) Develop neighborhood self help rehabilitation programs: tool library, workshops, labor sharing.

3) Provide assistance to individuals seeking loans from private sources and in selecting reputable rehabilitation contractors.

4) Encourage persons in the Enterprise Zone portion of the neighborhood to seek tax credits for housing rehabilitation costs.

5) Provide information concerning tax incentives for rehabilitation of income producing historic properties and property tax moratoriums for rehabilitation of any structures at least 25 years old. Refer to Appendix 11, Development Incentives. I

6) Require property owners to bring their buildings up to code and maintain.

Alternatives 1 through 6 are supported by the Task Force. Public assistance for housing rehabilitation is felt to be necessary given the numbers of units involved and the low income characteristics of the residents involved. The area is at a point where parts of it could come back from dilapidation or fall to a point where rehabilitation is impossible. Establishing the neighborhood self help programs let's people know they are not alone in trying to improve the area. Loan assistance is needed to help low income persons, elderly persons or those who do not understand financial instruments in applying for the loans they need to finance property improvements. Similarly a local clearing house for rehabilitation contractors could prevent fly-by-night operations from preying on residents of the neighborhood. The part of Census Tract 81 that is in Clifton neighborhood is also a part of the Louisville Enterprise Zone. This is the southwest corner of the neighborhood bounded by Frankfort Avenue, South Bellaire, Payne Street, Sturgis Avenue, 1-64 and Mellwood Avenue. Homes and businesses in this area are eligible for a wide range of tax incentives and benefits. Because of recent tax reforms at the federal level, tax incentives to investors in a National Register Historic District are reduced or more difficult to use. It is important to know if changes in federal law occur and to disseminate information about such programs in a timely manner. Code enforcement is the "stick" necessary to encourage owners to maintain their property and take advantage of any "carrot" programs available for rehabilitation of property in Clifton neighborhood. Homeowners have more motivation to maintain their environment than do absentee owners but those who do not should be cited. h. Issue: Vacant land, businesses and residential structures detract from the quality of the neighborhood. Alternatives: 1) Encourage occupancy of vacant structures. 2) Encourage maintenance of vacant lots until desirable use activities for them can be established.

3) Enforce ordinances regarding vacant structures and weeds. All three alternatives are supported. Vacant lots and structures can become eyesores very easily. Strict enforcement of existing ordinances can prevent problems from proliferating. A neighborhood listing of properties available for purchase or rent could be developed in cooperation with active realtors in the area. i. Issue: Persons in the area are unfamiliar with zoning and building code regulations. i Alternatives: 1) Hold information seminars in the neighborhood. 2) Publish an informational column in the neighborhood newsletter and have an "advice" column. 3) Create a neighborhood resource center with copies of the regulations available for review. 4) Encourage the Clifton Community Council committee on zoning to review enforcement of zoning and building regulations in the area. All four alternatives are supported by the Task Force. Informa- tional meetings, newsletters and a resource center for researching zoning and building codes for the area combined with expanded review by the existing Clifton Council Committee on zoning of issues brought to their attention by this process, should provide for I better understanding and enforcement. j. Issue: Dumping and ill-kept alleys and rear yards. ~lternatives: 1) Organize cleanup campaign to supplement and assist Operation Brightside efforts. 2) Cite violators under existing laws. 3) Have the city clean up violations and place liens on property to satisfy costs. I All three alternatives are supported by the Task Force. Brightside efforts are applauded by the Task Force but an on-going neighborhood based effort is needed to deal with the problems present in the area. Serious problems warrant citing under existing regulations and, if the property owner is unwilling to clean up the problems, the City should and recuperate clean-up costs through liens placed on the property. Exceptions should, however, be made for hardship situations such as poverty, age or handicap with special efforts on the behalf of the volunteer clean-up workers to assist these property owners. Liens have limitations in their effectiveness due to a five year limit on their applicability. k. Issue: Air pollution in the neighborhood is a problem due to industries in and adjacent to the neighborhood. Alternatives: 1) Encourage Air Pollution Control District of Jefferson County to review problem areas. 2) Meet with businesses to relate concerns of neighborhood residents. 3) Take air pollution impacts into consideration in the development of the land use and rezoning plan for Clifton. All three alternatives are supported. Complaints generally revolve around odors and particulates that periodically settle on cars in the area. Relating these concerns to the Air Pollution Control District of Jefferson County and meeting with them and the businesses involved may abate this problem. Reviewing potential air pollution impacts of future development suggested by the land use and rezoning plans for Clifton will minimize future problems. 1. Issue: Protection is needed for the tree covered slopes along Brownsboro Road. Alternatives: 1) Seek scenic easement donations from property owners. 2) Purchase the property from the current owners and preserve it as open space. 3) Create a landscape buffer overlay zone. 4) Rezone the property to a very low density residential zone. 5) Negotiate with the owners to minimize the impacts of clearing vegetation along the sloped areas. 6) Educate persons about the negative impacts of tree cutting on erosion and noise in the area. Alternatives 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are recommended by the Task Force. This is an area where existing regulations are ineffective for protecting the aesthetic and environmentally sensitive areas in a developed neighborhood. All of these tools can help protect sensitive areas. Scenic easements donated by the owners can provide for open space and protect the existing vegetation. A landscape buffer overlay if adopted in the area could prevent or limit vegetation clearing in the areas where it is applied. Some ground work in establishing the overlay type of a land use protection as a tool has been established but there are no landscape overlays currently in effect in Jefferson County. Rezoning the property involved to a very low density residential zone could minimize the potential for highly intensive use activity on sensitive land and is a more conventional tool. Negotiating with owners and educating them about the potential negative impacts off-site that may result from clearing or developing land that is environmentally sensitive is a more direct tool that could prevent individuals from trying to develop their land before the other land use regulations discussed above could be developed and applied. Alternative 2 was rejected as not cost effective.

I m. Issue: Loss of trees to utility related trimming is a problem. Alternatives: 1) Request Louisville Gas and Electric Company to limit tree trimming to a minimum. 2) Seek underground utilities for new development. 3) Replant areas having overhead utility lines with trees which remain small. All three alternatives are supported. Some tree trimming in the area has been extremely severe. If trimming could be reduced the character of the area would be enhanced. If modifications cannot be made or the type of tree located under the lines is the problem, then removal and replanting with trees that remain small is considered a reasonable approach. LG&E will benefit by not having to trim the trees and the neighborhood will not have lopsided or flat-topped trees. Seeking underground utilities for new development is a long term goal. It would be desirable to place all utilities underground, but unless costs could be reduced it is unlikely to occur. n. Issue: Trash, high weeds, overgrown sidewalks and other landscaping problems. Alternatives: 1) Encourage enforcement of local ordinances on weeds. 2) Continue Operation Brightside cleanups. I

I 3) Encourage private maintenance of sidewalks. I I 4) Encourage a trash receptacle program along Frankfort Avenue.

5) Enforce anti-litter laws. I All five alternatives are recommended by the Task Force. Each contributes to the efforts being made to clean up the area. Weed control and litter law enforcement will make offenders conscious of the concerns the area residents have with appearances. Brightside and a trash receptacle program along Frankfort Avenue can help clean up existing problem areas. More information about sidewalk maintenance is found in the Transportation Section of this plan. o. Issue: Fear of crime and vandalism in the neighborhood. Alternatives: 1) Form additional neighborhood residential and business block watches.

2) . ~ddstreet lights in the area.

3) Contact elected officials and police about criminal justice concerns in the neighborhood.

All of these alternatives are supported. Block watches are felt to I be an effective means of reducing criminal activity. The addition of street lights also contributes to this effort. The criminal justice concerns relate to a perceived leniency toward repeat offenders who make Clifton their home and engage in criminal activity there. Refer to Issue p. also. p. Issue: Youth in the neighborhood do not have enough activities targeted toward their needs. Alternatives: 1) Seek supervised activities for youths in the area through schools, churches and Metro Parks.

2) Organize social service programs to allow youths to perform volunteer services.

3) Develop a job program to match part-time and special demand jobs with young people in the neighborhood. All three alternatives are supported. Vandalism and juvenile delinquency could be reduced if more structured activities were available for neighborhood youths. These could include recreational and social activities such as team sports or dances. A second possibility is social service volunteer work to assist the elderly, sight impaired or other persons in need of assistance in the area. Small businesses and area residents frequently need assistance with odd jobs such as lawn mowing, leaf raking and snow shovelling. These chores create seasonal part time work in the area that could be directed to area youth through bulletin boards located in activity centers or a hiring hall. q. Issue: Dog-related nuisance: noise problems and untethered I animals. I Alternatives: 1) Encourage enforcement by the Animal Control office. 2) Encourage voluntary compliance through education of the residents via the newsletter. Both alternatives are supported. Calling in noise or control problems with animals in the area should bring this problem to the attention of the owners. The newsletter can reinforce this with education about why this is a problem and note that the blind people in the neighborhood cannot see the droppings uncontrolled animals leave on sidewalks. The enforcement of Louisville's ordinance on I cleaning up after pets will help get this message across. r. Issue: Street and alley lighting is a problem in several areas. Alternatives: 1) Encourage a study of the need for additional street lighting in specific locations. 2) Encourage private businesses to install additional lighting. 3) Inform residents about the process for obtaining street lights if they perceive a need in their . area. 4) Let the existing petition process determine the location of future lights. Alternatives 3 and 4 are supported. It was felt that, if informed about the petition process for obtaining new lights, areas needing facilities would then pursue the improvements. Alternatives 1 and 2 were not considered necessary to relieve the problems. s. Issue: Quality of electric service in the neighborhood is poor. (South side of Frankfort Avenue: New Main/- Albany area seems to be affected by frequent outages. ) Alternatives: 1) Meet with Louisville Gas and Electric Company to discuss the concerns about service in the area. 2) Develop more specific information about the quality of service issues in the neighborhoods, possibly through the neighborhood newsletter. Both alternatives are recommended. Documentation of the extent of the problem should be prepared before meeting with LG&E. Area residents could be asked to keep a log of outages through the newsletter. t. Issue: Drainage problems exist in some areas. Alternatives: 1) Develop list of areas and submit to Metropolitan Sewer District. 2) Meet with Metropolitan Sewer District officials to discuss problem areas. Both alternatives are recommended. A list needs to be developed. Residents should be surveyed in the newsletter. This doesn't appear to be a major problem but should be examined and if necessary taken to MSD for solutions if submitting a list of problem areas doesn't generate a suitable response. u. Issue: Future use of institutional buildings in the Clifton neighborhood is uncertain. Alternatives: 1) Allow current zoning to guide future use activities.

2) Recommend future reuse of institutional structures, if their current use leaves the area, that is compatible with surrounding use. 3) Allow reuse of the structure by another institutional use of a similar character. Alternatives 2 and 3 are recommended. It is recognized that the plan cannot anticipate all land use changes or new uses which might involve the existing institutional structures. Making sure the new use is compatible with the surrounding uses will reduce potential conflicts arising from these changes. 2. Recommended Land Use Plan The land use plan, recommendations and criteria for future land 1 I use in Clifton neighborhood are presented in this section of I the report. The land use plan consists of a set of guidelines and a map (Figure (I-F) The guidelines contain the land use 1 recommendations and the map shows specific locations these recommendations affect. The land use plan is the result of the problem identification and alternatives evaluation process 1 conducted with the Clifton Plan Task Force and drawing on responses generated by the neighborhood nominal group. Recom- I mendations addressing specific conditions found in Clifton based on the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan are also incorporated in this plan. Site-specific recommendations (map and guidelines) represent the neighborhood's intent and prudent planning response at a given point in time. Changing conditions may affect the validity of these recommendations. Desirable future land use changes unforeseen by the planing process may be appropriate. a. Land Use Guidelines Appearances 1. Encourage a multiple faceted approach to dealing with the problems of litter, poorly kept properties and structures, vacant lots and vacant structures in the ne'ighborhood. Encour- age maintenance, occupancy of vacant structures, a trash receptacle program along Frankfort Avenue and observation of leash laws/animal control ordinances. 2. Establish a local historic preservation district and/or create a design overlay district to promote appropriate forms of renovation work or new construction in the Frankfort Avenue business corridor. 3. Minimize the extent of tree trimming by LG&E or replant the utility easements with trees that do not grow large enough to I cause conflicts. 4. Enforce housing codes and ordinances on weeds, anti-litter laws, structural condition. 5. Prevent clear cutting vegetation on slopes along Brownsboro Road and elsewhere. Commercial Development 6. Develop an effective business organization and strengthen cooperation between residents and businesses in the area. 7. Prepare a market profile for attracting quality restaurants to the area and a survey of vacant commercial structures to use in attracting new businesses to the area.

8. Develop a facade and streetscape improvement plan for the commercial strip along Frankfort Avenue. Encourage the restoration of historic structures utilizing tax incentives available to businesses.

9. Rezone areas currently zoned C-2 commercial to a lower intensity commercial district when the existing use activity does not require a C-2 classification, to minimize the potential for future "nuisance" uses. Environment 10. Work with the Air Pollution Control District and businesses in the area to reduce air pollution. Consider possible air pollution impacts of future land use. 11. Develop a listing of drainage problem areas and work with Metropolitan Sewer District to solve those problems. 12. Educate the neighborhood about the building, housing and zoning codes and work to see that they are enforced better in the neighborhood. Recreation 13. Increase the programs and facilities available at existing parks. Seek the use of the Kentucky School for the Blind facilities and Franklin School facilities for recreation; improve access to Cherokee Park. Retaining the vacant land along 1-64 for open space and as possible access-way to Chero- kee Park is encouraged. Residential 14. Encourage residential rehabilitation through public programs, self-help efforts and rehabilitation training. Assist residents in making loan applications, in acquiring enterprise zone benefits in eligible areas, and in utilizing existing housing rehabilitation programs and the property tax assessment moratorium. Refer to Appendix 11, Development Incentives. 15. Rezone existing single family, duplex and apartment areas to zoning districts which reflect their current developed density. Social Environment

16. Develop additional block watch programs and relate concerns . over criminal justice to elected officials. 17. Provide additional recreational, employment and social service opportunities for youth in the area. Utilities 18. Obtain additional street lights in areas where they are needed in the neighborhood. 19. Document electrical service problems in the neighborhood and meet with LG&E to alleviate the problems. 20. Seek underground utilities when possible. D. IMPLEMENTATION This section of the Clifton Plan identifies available programs and actions necessary to implement the plan's recommendations. When possible, an estimate of costs associated with the implementation measure is included. All projects cannot be implemented immediately due to funding constraints and an extended period of time may be involved before they are completed. Some of the agencies noted as responsible for implementation and programs may change, however the report notes the resources as they currently (mid 1989) exist. 1. The Neighborhood Residents' Role a. the^ Role of Individuals in Implementing the Neighborhood Plan. Efforts of Clifton residents are important to implementing the plan recommendations. Programs available to improve neighborhoods have limited funding resources. Further, the collective efforts of neighborhood residents through organizations such as the Clifton Community Council, the Clifton Community Council Business Group and churches can change overall environments in the neighborhood. Clifton Property Owners Property owners have a vested interest in the improvement of their property and its surroundings. Local government clean-up programs generally involve only the public right-of-way unless code violations occur on private property, a property owner failed to respond to citations and liens were placed on the property to recover costs of the clean-up. Property owners should take full responsibility for maintaining litter-free conditions on their properties and to the midpoint of streets and alleys. Unsafe sidewalk conditions, such as low limbs, sidewalk tripping hazards and overgrown sidewalks should be corrected by property owners. Loan money is available from the City of Louisville for sidewalk repair by homeowners, if a tripping hazard is cited. More detail is provided in Appendix I1 and in the transportation implementation section of this plan. Other low cost activities that the individual property owner can undertake to improve the area include better yard and tree maintenance, including removal of dead trees or undesirable species (Ailanthus for example). Caution should be observed when trimming trees if electrical or other communication wiring is present and other utilities should be consulted before any digging is undertaken. Residential Rehabilitation Another responsibility for individual property owners is maintenance of their structures and rehabilitation where conditions have deteriorated to the extent that simple mainte- i nance will not suffice. A grant (the REHAB Incentive Program) targeted to low income persons living in older established neighborhoods such as Clifton will provide up to $1,000 to assist in covering the cost of correcting cited exterior I housing code violations. To be eligible a homeowner must live in the home and be in the "target" neighborhood (all of Clifton is included). Further, income guidelines apply and grant recipients must remain in the home for two years after its receipt. Appendix I1 provides greater detail about this program. It is administered by the City of Louisville Depart- ment of Inspections, Permits and Licenses. These efforts by individual property owners will implement land use guidelines encouraging improved appearances in the neighborhood under guidelines 1 and 4 and residential rehabilitation under guideline 14. b. Collective Actions By Neighborhood Residents Clifton Community Council The Clifton Community Council has taken an active role in the improvement of the Clifton neighborhood. The plan recommends strengthening membership and increasing involvement of business representatives. Business Association The Clifton Community Council Business Group has been established. Persons present at the early meetings have shown strong interest in the implementation of this plan's commercial development guidelines. The commercial corridors along Frank- fort Avenue and Brownsboro Road are the facade that most outsiders passing through Clifton neighborhood see and is the basis for their image of the neighborhood. It is extremely important to the continued viability of the neighborhood that these commercial strips be attractive, landscaped, well maintained, and that structures remain occupied. The Clifton Plan supports efforts to establish a working organization of neighborhood businesses. The recommendation for streetscape improvements along Frankfort Avenue needs the direct input and cooperation of businesses and property owners in the area. Commercial activity is enjoying a renaissance in the Frankfort Avenue area anchored by several exemplary historic restorations. Sharing insights gained by the businesses that performed the renovations with others in the area may help them decide to restore their property to original condition. Businesses could also work through the business group to improve the appearance of structures and to consult with the Clifton Community Council on problems and areas of mutual concern. Institutions Effective communication with the churches, schools and other institutions in the neighborhood will enable the Clifton Community Council to identify common interests and goals and more effectively allocate resources in pursuit of them. The local institutions may be able to facilitate the development of paid and volunteer social service activities for area youth by matching needs of area residents and businesses with young people seeking employment. Bulletin boards could post jobs and available employees or such information could be listed in newsletters and exchanged between groups. Further, institutions could sponsor and provide space for recreational activities for youth in the area. The Clifton Community Council also needs to maintain close ties with elected officials and representatives of the public agencies that coordinate neighborhood revitalization efforts, infrastructure maintenance and zoning and code enforcement. The City of Louisville Departments of Housing and Urban Devel- opment, Neighborhood Services, Operation Brightside, Inspec- tions Permits and Licenses (building code and zoning enforcement) and Public Works all play key roles in the implementation of recommendations of the neighborhood plan. The joint City- County Office For Economic Development will play an important role in implementing the commercial corridor recommendations. Finally, the Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commis- sion will work to implement rezoning recommendations and see that future rezoning requests observe the intent of the plan. The Clifton Community Council also needs to maintain communication links with the adjacent neighborhoods. Issues impacting multiple areas can be worked out through inter neighborhood task forces, shared meeting representation and newsletter exchanges. Clifton Community Council publishes a neighborhood newspaper that has 100% neighborhood coverage: residents, businesses and institutions. This should be continued on a regular basis and articles covering issues identified by the neighborhood plan guidelines included as regular columns. Clifton BrightsideIClean Sweep. The need for a local effort that is patterned after the City of Louisville's Operation right side is evidenced by the magnitude of litter; poorly suited trees, and weeds present in the alleys and rear yards of many parts of the neighborhood. These conditions are not only a visual and aesthetic nuisance but also represent a violation of health and sanitation ordinances. Disorderly alleys and yard space become unusable for parking and access and undesirable for open space. Clifton is built in a fairly dense pattern of narrow lots. Parking space is in short supply and open spacelyard space is limited and should not be compromised due to neglect. Creating an organized group to work at cleaning up the neigh- I borhood will facilitate the coordination of government support (provision of dumpsters, hauling junk cars, citing property owners that do not participate voluntarily and cleaning up such sites if, after citation, the owner still refuses to act) and will provide for the intensive effort needed initially in the Clifton neighborhood to gain the upper hand in dealing with the problem. After a sweep has been made of the entire area it should be possible to reduce the level of effort involved to an annual or semi-annual clean-up program. The clean-up task force should include paid positions employing local youth, neighborhood volunteers, block area volunteers and a government liaison to provide guidance and support. As block areas are targeted contact should be made with each resident/- property owner to tell them about the process and indicate the type of clean-up work that will be undertaken, seek their active involvement and see if they wish to be excluded from the effort. No private property should be accessed without the owner's permission and care should be taken in removing junk that may have "value" to the owner. It should be made apparent to the property owner that the neighborhood clean-up process is a voluntary "no cost" alternative to citation and mandatory clean-up if substandard conditions exist. After the clean-up operation is completed in an area a follow- up effort to encourage maintenance, grass planting, fence reconstruction and landscape improvements should be made. If provision of a dumpster, alley reconstruction or other improvements is found to be necessary to minimize the potential for future reoccurrence, it should be undertaken. Sources of funds for administering this program could come from existing youth employment programs, re-allocation of Department of Solid Waste Management and Services personnel, loaned Operation Brightside employees or employees using contributed funds from neighborhood sources. Block Watch. Block Watch is a crime-fighting tool that informs residents who their neighbors are and encourages them to look out for each other. Residents organized at the block level for crime prevention purposes can also address other types of neighborhood issues. Block Watch can be used to improve grass roots organization of the neighborhood, especially in those portions of Clifton that have been less active in the Council. Once established, the Council should maintain close contact with them, to serve as a resource in dealing with block-level concerns, and to gain the assistance of the block clubs in implementing neighborhood programs. The Police Department provides a "starter kit" to help create the block watch, and will meet with each block one time. A similar operation for businesses called a Business Crime Watch is also available for fighting crime in the commercial areas of the neighborhood. c. Community Council Participation in Plan Implementation The Clifton Community Council will play a key role in implementing the recommendations of the neighborhood plan and organizing the various groups necessary to implement recommendations. The Community Council can aid plan implementation in the following areas. Plan Adoption. The first step toward plan implementation is the review of the draft plan by neighborhood and agency interests, revision as needed and adoption by the Louisville Board of Aldermen. The Neighborhood Services Department will be responsible for distribution of the draft when it is completed. Once the plan is adopted by the Board of Aldermen, it becomes a basis for seeking assistance with specific neighborhood improvement projects. The Council members should commit efforts to making sure this process is undertaken in a timely and thorough manner. Design Over'lay/Local Historic District Team. Guidelines for future land use in Clifton include recommendations for improving the quality of design, protecting historic resources, ensuring the compatibility of new construction in the Frankfort Avenue commercial area (Guidelines 2 and 8) and in maintaining the vegetation in utility easements and environmentally sensitive areas (Guidelines 3 and 5). The Clifton Community Council could further these objectives by organizing one or more design teams to establish standards that residents and businesses in the area can support. These groups could consist of volunteers from the neighborhood with design expertise or loaned experts from schools or government agencies. The group would develop the review procedures to ensure new development meets the guidelines created for areas affected by the overlay or historic district designation. This review could include exterior finishes, landscaping and parking arrangement. Core development of the program may require paid professional assistance. Funding could be sought through contributions from area business persons or from the City of Louisville. The Landmarks Commission, Planning Commission and possibly a private consultant will be involved in implementing this proposal. Zoning, Building Code and Land Use Committee. The Community Council's existing Zoning Committee has monitored zoning and land use issues for the neighborhood. The Committee should continue to watch these actions. Volunteers with expertise in zoning should continue to meet and to review any requests for zoning changes, and be alert to possible violations of the zoning regulations (Guidelines 10 and 12). The limited number of zoning enforcement officers in the city means that assistance from neighborhood people is essential. The process of carrying out the zoning changes proposed in this plan will require a significant effort by the Community Council to present the rezoning proposal and develop consensus among area residents. This process will help develop expertise in zoning matters among Council members. 1,

As noted in the section title, the neighborhood plan recommends I that the responsibility of this committee be expanded or a separate committee established to address problems with building code violations that may occur in the neighborhood. The need for an informed group of individuals parallels the reasons presented for the continued existence of the zoning committee. Both of these groups should report actions in the neighborhood newsletter and provide a question and answer service column. Questions that the group cannot answer could be referred to the appropriate agencies for interpretations. Business Association. The Clifton Community Council can assist in organizinq area businesses. Currently the organization is working as the "Council Business Group" .- This ,incorporation into the Community Council may continue in the future or a separate group may evolve. Residents of the neighborhood should speak to the managers of businesses they frequent in the area and encourage their participation in the association. Recreation and Open Space Improvements. The Community Council could also take responsibility for implementing the open-space and recreation recommendations of the neiqhborhood plan (Guide- line 13) and for protecting other natural areas from adverse development (guidelines 3 and 5). A walkway system should be developed that feeds into the large area along 1-64 that is recommended for preservation as open space. The Council should contact the State Highway Department about Metro Parks acquisition of their property along 1-64 through purchase or donation. This area should be integrated as an extension of Cherokee and Seneca Parks. (Similar treatment could be developed for the property along the southwest side of 1-64 bordering Beargrass Creek). Metro Parks would be the likely party responsible for establishing and maintaining walkways. They could utilize a summer youth employment program to actually build and maintain the facility. Metro Parks has indicated that any expansion of park land will require budgetary adjustment. Refer to Appendix IV, Metro Parks letter from Bob Kirchdorfer. Youth Activities. The Community Council could work as coordinator for the development of employment, volunteer work and recreational opportunities for the area's youth. This could be coordinated with schools, churches, the Kentucky School for the Blind and Metro Parks. The Community Council could, for example, prepare a survey of youth needing jobs or create a sign-up list to determine the number of persons and the types of work they can handle or would like to perform. They could then advertise the availability of the work force in the newsletter and work through responses from this and the institutions to match youth with jobs. Other, less formal ways of coordinating jobs and youths could also be developed. The neighborhood clean-up campaign could provide some jobs. Creating recreational opportunities (youth dances, outings, sports leagues etc.) can be coordinated in a similar manner. The Community Council could survey young people about what they want to do and then work with the institutions and Metro Parks to provide these opportunities. 2. Zoning Changes A zoning change concept for the Clifton neighborhood has been prepared as part of the neighborhood plan. Much of the residential area of the neighborhood and some of the commercially zoned areas would be rezoned under this proposal. Zoning change would promote implementation of many of the plan's recommendations. The rezoning proposals are shown on Figure I-G and are discussed in the following sections. These are only to be considered as possible zoning changes that reflect the intent of the neighborhood plan. Comments received concerning the proposals will be used to develop an actual zoning change proposal for the neighborhood after the plan has been adopted. The rezoning implementation is a separate process that will cost an estimated $5,000. These funds will be used to prepare the rezoning application, the zoning change staff report, identification and notification of affected property owners. The Clifton Community Council worked with the Board of Aldermen to arrange the funding to carry out zoning changes as part of the planning process for the neighborhood. Owners of property proposed for rezoning will be notified by mail, signs posted at the property and by a legal advertisement. An informational meeting will be held to present the proposal to the neighborhood and to solicit comments before the public hearing held by the Planning Commission. The proposed rezoning and any modification will, if approved by the Planning Commission, go to the Louisville Board of Aldermen for approval. The effectiveness of zoning depends on the quality of its administration. Enforcement today hinges on reporting of violations by concerned citizens. The Council's subcommittee on zoning can take a strong role in seeing that zoning violations are reported and dealt with in a timely manner. a. Lower Density Residential Zoning The most extensive zoning change considered in the Clifton Plan would lower the permissible densities, and replace much of the apartment zoning in the area with single family zoning. These changes would reflect the plan's recommendation to rezone the area to reflect its current use activity and density (Guideline 15) and by stabilizing the potential residential density, provide support for individual rehabilitation efforts (Guide- line 14). The rezoning proposals shown on Figure I-G reflect the lowest zoning classification consistent with the predominant existing residential use. Areas zoned for apartment use predominantly used for single family purposes with densities below 7.3 units per acre are recommended for a single family zoning classification. Single family areas, currently zoned for apartment use with over 7.3 units per acre, are recommended for rezoning to a lower density apartment district that would strongly limit the potential for construction of additional units. It should be noted that the zoning change concept shown on Figure I-G is based on the review of field survey and published directories as to the existence of apartments in residential structures. Nevertheless, there may be inaccuracies in the existing land use map, because of the difficulty of distin- guishing homes that are single family from those converted to apartment use. The neighborhood review process should help identify any errors present. Evidence of errors in land uses presented at the eventual rezoning of the neighborhood will also be taken into account and corrected. b. Reduction of Commercial Zoning The Clifton Neighborhood Plan recommends rezoning commercial uses to a lower intensity commercial district when the existing use activity does not require a higher commercial zoning classification (Guideline 9). Existing residential areas are recommended for rezoning to zoning districts which reflect their current developed density (Guideline 15). To achieve these recommendations the rezoning concept suggests changing zoning in the Frankfort Avenue corridor between Mellwood Avenue and State Street from C-2 to C-1 and from C-2 to R-5A in the residential areas. Brief descriptions of'the uses allowed in these zones are shown in Figure I-C. Between Bellaire Avenue and Ewing Avenue along Frankfort Avenue the plan recommendations include numerous rezoning proposals from C-2 Commercial to C-1 and various single family and apartment districts that reflect current use activity. The south block face of Browns- boro Road between William Street and State Street (with the exception of the corner lot at William Street) is recommended for rezoning from C-1 to R-6 and R-5A apartment districts reflecting the existing density of the residential development in this area. c. Rezoning to Protect Natural Areas The strip of vacant land fronting along 1-64 between Payne Street and Grinstead Avenue is recommended for future use as open space and is recommended for rezoning from R-6 Apartment to R-1 (the classification typically applied to park facilities). The R-6 zoning in the Clifton minipark and the C-1 zoning in the Bingham minipark are recommended for rezoning to R-1, low density single family zoning also. 3. Frankfort Avenue Commercial Area Improvements The recommendations in this section of the plan will depend heavily on the existence of a strong neighborhood business organization. A commitment from a majority of the business owners in the area is needed to be successful. Guidelines 1, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 16 are involved. a. Market Profile The business association should seek professional assistance in developing a market profile of sales potential represented by the area's residents, an inventory of available commercial space, and commercial needs in the neighborhood. This information could help to attract new business (quality restaurants are desired) to vacant or underutilized structures in the neighborhood. A realty section of the business association could work with area realtors to market vacant and underutilized structures and, if it becomes known that a business is leaving the area, work to see that the structure is reoccupied as soon as possible. The Office for Economic Development could provide the expertise needed for preparing the market profile or a consultant could be employed. The realty section should also informally police vacant structures on a regular basis to make sure that weeds, litter or vandalism are not going unchecked by the property owners. A business block watch program is suggested in earlier sections that might also incorporate this activity. b. Streetscape and Facade Plan for Frankfort Avenue A streetscape improvement plan that addresses sidewalks, curbing, parking, alleys, signage, lighting, location and - character of landscaping and utility treatment in the Frankfort Avenue commercial corridor should be prepared. This will depend strongly on consensus being reached by the businesses involved about the type of improvements they will support and, eventually bear much of the responsibility for installing. A I design overlay or local historic district designation could provide a mechanism for implementing a review procedure and I setting design and facade standards in the corridor. I It is important that the business organization become strongly established and attempt smaller projects before attempting to undertake the overall corridor improvement proqram. The group should establish its ability to accomplish tasks with less controversial projects such as a trash receptacle proqram or the block watch program. Such programs will provide an environment where business persons can meet each other and develop the organization without the level of controversy that a design plan is likely to generate. The eventual development of the plan can be performed by an I architect, landscape architect, or possibly by the non-profit Louisville Community Design Center. Other alternatives for generating ideas include sponsoring a design competition or contacting one or more of the area schools of architecture (UK, UC, Ball State, or Notre Dame) for student project studies. The latter would generate varied ideas that the business group could select from to generate a recommendation. c. Screening of Commercial Uses Landscaping and fencing are recommended to screen unattractive commercial uses and parking lots from homes located along Frankfort Avenue and Brownsboro Road. The landscape ordinance (Article 12 of the Zoning District Regulations) requires screening for new or expanded commercial use activities. A voluntary program is also recommended. The business association should encourage members to provide screening indepen- dently or as part of a coordinated package of alley improvements. A cooperative effort involving the individual property owners could provide screening at very low cost. A joint- purchasing arrangement could reduce the cost of buying fences and landscape material. Similarly, competitive bids could be sought for installation of screening and plants. The creation I of defined boundaries between residential and commercial areas also provides for better security. I d. Community Review of Commercial Development Review of commercial development is encouraged, to promote compatibility between businesses and homes. The design overlay district or local historic preservation district are two ways to achieve this objective. As an alternative to regulatory controls, the local business association could encourage commercial uses to present their proposed developments to the neighborhood on a voluntary basis. A design overlay is essentially applied through a rezoning process with action by the Planning Commission to create and apply the district and approval by the Board of Aldermen is required for each action. The local historic preservation district would only require Board of Aldermen approval. e. Tax Credits I There are financial incentives available for the substantial rehabilitation of income-producing properties in the Clifton National Register District (see Figure I-I). A tax credit is available, provided the improvements meet federal standards. The business association and Clifton Community Council should work with the Landmarks Commission, to ensure that businesses are aware of this program offered by the federal government. A letter to business owners or a meeting to explain the process should be considered. 4. Preserving Neighborhood Resources The Clifton Neighborhood Plan seeks to preserve those aspects of the neighborhood that are unique to its identity; open space, historic architecture, brick streets and environmentally sensitive areas (Guidelines 2, 3, 5, 8, 13 and 14). a. Protection of Historic Structures The plan recommends that the Clifton neighborhood consider creating a local Historic Preservation District or a design review overlay district to protect the architectural resources in the commercial area along Frankfort Avenue. Continued publicity about the historic character of the neighborhood and illustrative examples of maintained or restored historic architecture in the area, contrasted with structures that have not been maintained, provides another mechanism for encouraging restoration. Slide lectures on Clifton generated by the City of Louisville Landmarks Commission staff are excellent teaching tools about the impacts and importance of historic preservation. Tax credits are not available for owner occupied residential restoration at this time but they do still exist for commercial or rental residential (income producing) structures. The Land- marks Commission is the primary source of information on tax credit programs available from the federal government. If a local Historic Preservation District or design review overlay district is enacted for the Frankfort Avenue commercial corridor, proposed exterior changes such as repairs, additions, new construction and demolition would be reviewed by a local architectural review committee and the Landmarks Commission. A related issue in the neighborhood is the preservation of the remaining brick streets and alleys that enhance the historic character of the neighborhood. They should be restored by utility companies when disturbed during the installation and repair of underground utilities. b. The existing open space and quarry cliffs along 1-64 between Payne Street and Grinstead Drive are an important resource and are recommended for preservation as an extension of the Chero- keelSeneca park system. Similar treatment is also recommended for the Beargrass Creek and bikeway corridor along the west side of 1-64 (outside the neighborhood). These areas are isolated by the cliffs and 1-64 and impacted by some flooding. While not pristine areas of vegetation, they do represent significant examples of regenerative growth. A walkway facility through the open space corridor and sidewalks connecting it with the neighborhood is suggested. This walkway would parallel the successful bikeway facility on the west side of 1-64. Metro Parks has indicated that any expansion of park land will require budgetary adjustment. Refer to Appendix IV, Metro Parks letter from Bob Kirchdorfer. The vacant land along 1-64 is currently owned by a number of different persons and organizations. The largest land owner however, is the Kentucky Department of Transportation. The rezoning proposal for this area suggests that it be rezoned from R-6 Apartment to R-1 low density single family use (a district generally applied to park facilities). Federal controls exist over use of the vacant land due to its acquisition for highway beautification. c. Environmentally Sensitive Areas The plan recommends the creation of a landscape buffer Develop- ment Review Overlay (DRO) to protect the steep slopes and vegetation along the south side of Brownsboro Road between North Clifton and State Street. Development in the overlay area would be subject to review for the impacts on existing vegetation, slopes, drainage and erosion if this were adopted. The Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission and Louisville Board of Aldermen would need to modify existing DRO legislation before this could be applied, possibly as part of the areawide rezoning of the neighborhood. d. Air Pollution Problems The neighborhood plan recommends that the Clifton Community Council and Business Group meet and discuss air pollution problems and then meet with representatives of the Air Pollu- tion Control District of Jefferson County to address any problems not satisfactorily dealt with through the meetings. This will implement guideline 10. Air Pollution Control District makes specific comments about controlling air pollution from future development in the Clifton Neighborhood. Refer to Appendix IV letter from John Bartles. 5. Utilities The neighborhood listed problems with the provision, adequacy and responsiveness of three public utilities. The provision of better services will require the Community Council and residents of the neighborhood to meet with or present their problems to the service provider. a. Electrical Services Two problems exist in the neighborhood. Trimming of trees has destroyed numerous trees and residents feel that it has been excessive. The Community Council should relate their concerns about maintenance of trees in the area to Louisville Gas & Electric. If trimming cannot be limited then perhaps smaller trees could be planted to avoid conflicts or, particularly in the Frankfort Avenue commercial strip and new developments, the electrical services could be placed underground or within the railroad corridor. This could be coordinated with Louisville Gas & Electric as part of the streetscape improvement plan for Frankfort Avenue. LG&E does not remove the stumps of trees they remove, nor do they provide new trees to replace them. LG&E does suggest proper planting locations and tree species to avoid future problems. Part of their booklet is reproduced in Appendix 11. The second electrical service problem involves frequent power interruqtions that occur in the area south of Frankfort Avenue. b. Drainage Problems Figure I-J shows the locations where standing water has been a problem in the neighborhood. This information was forwarded to the Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD). MSD indicated that additional responsibility for drainage improvements lie with the Kentucky Department of Transportation, Metro Parks and the City Public Works Department. Refer to Appendix IV, MSD letter from Bruce Seigle. c. Street Lights The individual residents of the neighborhood are responsible for obtaining a petition for the installation of a street light from the City of Louisville Department of Public Works and collecting supporting signatures by their neighbors. The Public Works staff will review the request and install lights as they find necessary.

'~ouisville Gas and Electric Company is upgrading the system and developing safe-guards that should reduce this problem. Refer to August 18, 1989 letter from Grorge R. Siemens, Jr. in Appendix IV. E. PRIORITIES I This section of the Clifton neighborhood plan prioritizes the land use guidelines developed in Section I-D. Recommended land use guidelines have been placed in one of four classifications: highest priority, high, medium or low priority. These classifications indicate the relative importance the Clifton Task Force assigns each of the recommendations of the land use plan. The priority list is based, in part, on the costs of implement- 1 ing guidelines, the availability of funds targeted to specific I activities, and the critical nature of some of the problems addressed. Activities that the individual or neighborhood council can initiate with relatively low funding are often given high priority while others focus on specific programs that include more expensive projects. In the future funding sources will change, tasks will be completed and problems will be solved in the neighborhood. The Clifton Council may wish to re-evaluate the priority list and add new items to be addressed on a periodic basis to reflect the changes that occur. I The following table presents the recommendations prioritized by the Task Force in March and April of 1989. Plan recommendations were prioritized rather than implementation measures. Implementation measures will change with programs, agency consolidations, changes in the conditions warranting the implementation measures and new techniques 'for addressing implementation.

LAND USE GUIDELINE IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES

(Highest Priority) 6. Develop an effective business organization and strengthen cooperation between residents and businesses in the area. 7. Prepare a market profile for attracting quality restaurants to the area and a survey of vacant commercial structures to use in attracting new businesses to the area. 17. Provide additional recreational, employment and social service opportunities for youth in the area. LAND USE GUIDELINE IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES

9. Rezone areas currently zoned C-2 Commercial to a lower intensity commercial district when the existing use activity does not require a C-2 classification to minimize the potential for future nuisance uses permitted. 15. Rezone existing single family, duplex and apartment areas to zoning districts which reflect their current developed density. 4. Enforce ordinances on weeds, anti- litter laws, structural condition and housing codes. (High Priority) 18. Obtain additional street lights in areas where they are needed in the neighborhood. 3. Minimize the extent of tree trimming by LG&E or replant the utility easements with trees that do not grow large enough to cause conflicts. 8. Develop a facade and streetscape improvement plan for the commercial str,ip along Frankfort Avenue. Encourage the restoration of historic structures utilizing tax incentives available to businesses. 1. Encourage a multiple faceted approach to dealing with the problems of litter, poorly kept properties and structures, vacant lots and vacant structures in the residential areas of the neighborhood. 12. Educate the neighborhood about the building and zoning codes and work to see that they are enforced better in the neighborhood. LAND USE GUIDELINE IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES (Medium Priority) 11. Develop a listing of drainage problem areas and work with Metropolitan Sewer District to solve those problems. 10. Work with the Air Pollution Control District and businesses in the area to reduce air pollution. Consider possible air pollution impacts of future land use. 16. Develop additional block watch programs and relate concerns over criminal justice to elected officials. 19. Document electrical service problems in the neighborhood and meet with LG&E to alleviate the problems. 14. Encourage residential rehabilitation through public programs, self help effort and rehabilitation training. Assistance in making loan applications, in acquiring enterprise zone benefits in eligible areas, and in utilizing existing housing rehabilitation programs should be provided to area residents. 13. Add park programs and facilities in the existing parks. Seek the use of the Kentucky School for the Blind and Franklin School facilities for recreation and improve access to Cherokee Park. Retaining the vacant land along 1-64 for open space and as possible access-way to Cherokee Park is encouraged. (Low Priority) 9. Prevent vegetation from being cleared from the slopes along Brownsboro Road and elsewhere. 2. Establish a local the historic preservation district and/or create a design overlay district to suggest appropriate forms of renovation work or new construction D.4 in the Frankfort Avenue commercial corridor. 20. Seek underground utilities when possible. LAND USE FIGURES Land Use

LEGEND

RESIDENTIAL Single Family Two Family Other

INDUSTRIAL Light Heayy Transportation Utilities

COMMERCIAL Wholesale Retail General Professional Office

PUBLIC/ SEMI-PUBLIC Cavernmental Medical Educational Religious Recreational Other Cemeteries

Vacant Parking

Source : Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commision, July, 1988

Study Area Boundary

Streets and Alleys on Original Plat But Not Actually Built

Fig. I-A

CLIFTON NEIGHBORHOOD Land Use SCALE 1" = 500' LO",..,IL. L*D 11111110" COYII" ,l~**l*C E01111.10" @ .., ...... bl

Commercial Classification

LEGEND

Neighborhood

A Service * Regional $ Office

Vacant

Fig. I-B

Commercial Classification SCA~E 1" = 500' LO"I."ILLI AND J.. I...0* (.(I"*TI

Existing Zoning

LEGEND

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS

R-1 Residential (1.1 units per acre, 1 dwelling per 40,000 square feet of lot area)

-R-5 Residential (7.3 units per acre, 1 dwelling per 6,000 square feet of lot area)

MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS

R-5A Residential (12.0 units per acre, 1 dwelling per Apartment 3,625 square feet of lot area)

R-6 Apartment (17.4 units per acre, 1 dwelling per 2,500 square feet of lot acre)

R-7 Apartment (34.8 units per acre, 1 dwelling per 2.500 square feet of lot area)

OFFICEIRESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS

OR-2 Office1 Residential

OR-3 OfficeIResidential

OTF OfficelTourist

COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS

C-1 Commmercial

C-2 Commercial

C-M Commercial Manufacturing

INDUSTRIAL

EZ-1 Enterprise Zone

M-2 Industrial

M-3 Industrial burce: Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission, July, 1988. Fig. I-C CLIFTON

NEIGHBORHOOD Existing Zoning SCALE 1" = 500' LOUllrllll A"D ll..l.lO1 CDYX.r 0PLINIIXC CO."11110* I ...... I ...... ,. ,- ...... < ..,...

6 R I

Condition of Structure

LEGEND

RESIDENTIAL

a Sound

b Sound Minor Repair

c Sound Major Repair

d Deteriorated

e Dilapidated

COMMERCIAL

A Standard

B Depreciated

C Substandard

kurce: Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission, July, 1988. - Study Area Boundary Streets and Alleys on Original Plat but Not Actually Built

Fig. I-D

CLIFTON NEIGHBORHOOD Condition of Structure SCALE l" = LOIIISIILL. AND ,.111"10* COUXI" .L1**,"0 CO""!(IIIIO* ;@ ,,,.,..,..,,..,,...... ,, ,...,... <..,... 73

1980 Census Tracts

LEGEND 80 1)8(1 Census Tracts Boundary and Number

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1980.

Fig. I-E CLIFTON NEIGHBORHOOD 1980 Census Tracts Not to scale LDYI.vIILC.ID1...I..Om cDUI1. .LA*.lr ..,..no1 63 .. ,... , . ...,.... ,...c..,.., Recommended Land Use

LEGEND

COMMERCIAL

INDUSTRIAL OPEN SPACE - RESIDENTIAL u INSTITUTIONAL OR RESIDENTIAL

/11111111 1 11 1 11 1 1 1 INSTITUTIONAL 111111111

Fig. I-F A CLIFTON RECOMMENDED NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE 1" = 500' LOUIIVILLI AlD ,I..I..O* C0U.I. ".CO"" ,..,om ..,... ,...,. ,...... , ...... c..... LAND USE

76 . I B 'LIIFTON RECOMMENDED NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE 1" = 500' @:.,:uo:*I~;,"c ::;;nIOO CO""," LAND USE ...... I...... I ...... < .. i .... 7 9

DRAFT REZONING PROPOSAL

LEGEND

0 R-5 to R-1 @ R-6 to R-5A

@. R-7 to R-5 0 R-6 to M-2 0 OR-2 to R-5 Existing Zoning ZhLlS+ 0 C-1 to R-5 a$>,%$> Draft Proposed Rezoning 0 C-2 to R-5

Fig. I-G A CLIFTON DRAFT REZONING NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE 1" = 500' LOYllYllll LIDJ11P1110N COYNIV PLAIMlMO 501111110N @ ,,..",,..a ,.. m.....,,,n ma.. m...c.. ,., PROPOSAL RESULTANT DRAFT REZONING

LEGEND

R-1 Residential District

R-3 Residential Single-Family District

R-4 Residential Single-Family District

R-5 Residential Single-Family District

R-5A Residential Multi-Family District

R:6 Residential Multi-Family District

R-7 Residential Multi-Family District

OR-2 Office Residential Distric:

OR-3 Office Residential District

OTF Office Tourist Facility

C- 1 Commercial District

C-2 Commercial District

C-M Commercial Manufacturing District

EZ-1 Enterprise Zone District

M-2 Industrial District M-3 lndustrial District

. R-6 Existing Zoning

Resultant Draft Rezoning

Fig. I-H i A! I~ CLIFTON RESULTANT NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE 1" = 500' LOYIIVIII, .*. ,,..,"10" COUNT, PLIIIIIO C0..11110" DRAFT REZONING @,* ..,..,..., ...... ,., ....,... < ..,... 1 1 B CLIFTON NEIGHBORHOOD DRAFT REZONING SCALE 1" = 500' L0UIIYILI.I AID 11VP1160N CI)Y*II ,LI**IXO COlll~~lO" PROPOSAL @ ..,.,...... , ..,...... ,, ...,... =,. .,.,

Drainage Problems

LEGEND

Areas where temporary backups or standing water exist

Source: Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission, 1989

Refer to comments from Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District in Appendix IV letter dated August 22, 1989.

FIG. I-J

TABLE 1-1: LAND USE CLIFTON NEIGHBORHOOD (1988)

SHEET C CLlFl'QN TOTAL ACRES PERCENT ACRES PERCENT 54.21 51.36 148.42 44.30 3.46 3.27 16.16 4.82 17.81 18.88 32.90 9.82 0.73 0.89 18.63 4.98 MANUFACTURING HEAVY 5.96 0.99 0.94 16.02 4.78 TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 COMMUNICATIONS/UTILITIES 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.29 WHOLESALE COMMERCIAL 0.00 0.08 0.70 0.66 0.81 0.24 RETAIL COMMERCIAL 4.00 2.90 7.88 7.28 13.44 4.01 SERVICE COMMERCIAL 1.07 2.06 1.49 3.67 3.48 8.80 2.03 OFFICE COMMERCIAL 0.18 0.20 0.04 0.03 0.40 0.38 0.62 0.19 GOVERNMENT 0.15 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.04 MEDICAL SERVICES 0.84 0.92 13.08 9.47 0.18 0.17 14.10 4.21 EDUCATIONAL 13.99 15.32 0.59 0.43 0.29 0.27 14.87 4.44 RELIGIOUS 1.58 1.73 2.61 1.89 0.00 0.00 4.19 1.26 PARKS/RECREATlON 1.18 1.29 5.07 3.67 0.00 0.00 6.25 1.87 17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 V 2.42 24.87 18.00 16.43 14.62 42.72 12.16 91.34 100.001 138.18 100.00 106.64 100.00 336.04 100.00, m.39 26.771 28.23 16.98 28.28 21.13 87.90 20.78 124.73 100.001 164.39 100.00 133.82 100.00 422.94 100.00

TABLE 1-4: ZONING CLIFTON NBIOHBORAOOD (1988)

SHEET A SHEm B SUER C I CLIm TOTAL ZONING DISTRICT CODE ACRES PERCENT ACRES PERCENT ACRES PERCENT R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ACRES PERCENT R- 1 0.00 0.00 4.26 2.59 0.00 0.00 R-6 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 4.26 1.01 R-5 0.W 0.00 2.02 1.23 21.34 16.96 23.38 R-6 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDFNTUL 5.62 R-8 55.98 44.87 114.01 69.38 83.82 82.84 R-1 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 263.81 80.01 R-7 33.98 27.24 10.10 6.14 1.14 0.85 OR-2 OFFICE/ MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTUL 46.22 10.89 OR-2 0.00 0.00 6.77 3.61 4.70 3.51 OR-3 OFFICE/ MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 10.47 2.48 OR-3 0.77 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.77 C-1 COMMERCIAL 0.18 C- 1 5.44 4.36 6.00 3.04 6.69 5.00 C-2 COMMERCUL 17.13 4.05 C-2 10.95 8.78 14.03 8.64 14.61 10.84 M-2 MANUFACTURING 39.49 9.34 M-2 17.63 14.13 9.18 6.68 1.82 1.21 28.43 6.72 TOTAL LANDXI 124.76 100.00 - 164.37 100.00 133.82 100.00 422.94 lWg- TABLE 1-5 STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS CLIFTON NEIGHBORHOOD 1 Residential Conmercial Map Rating Rating

Map Sheet (a) (bl (c) (d) (el A B C Sound Sound Sound Deteriorated Dilapidated Standard Depreciating Substandard Minor Major Repair Repair

Clifton Total 25 919 2 68 2 1 126 4 0

Percent 2.18 76.28 22.28 .28 .18 96.98 3.18 0%

Source: Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Comnission, August 1988. II TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT Summary of Findings Clifton's neighborhood identity is strongly defined by the major transportation routes that border and bisect the area, Brownsboro Road, Frankfort Avenue and 1-64. Traffic capacities of the major streets and intersections are adequate throughout most of the area. Only one intersection had an unacceptable level of service (Brownsboro Road and Ewing Avenue). Sidewalks are in need of maintenance and repair in many areas of the neighborhood. They are lacking in some parts of the neighborhood. Narrow streets and on-street parking slow traffic in many of the residential areas. This is viewed somewhat positively by residents, as speeding is discouraged. Truck traffic is a problem on some of the residential streets. Brick streets and stone curbs are being lost through repavings and underground utility work that does not replace the original materials or destroys them. Special pedestrian facilities to serve the needs of the blind and visually impaired residents of the neighborhood are needed. Routine maintenance of these facilities is also needed. Existing Conditions Roadways Clifton's street system is defined by two radial, major arterial streets that essentially begin their outward journey from Louisville's Downtown to its eastern suburbs in the Clifton neighborhood. The construction of 1-71 and 1-64 has diverted some through traffic from the area but both Frankfort Avenue and Brownsboro Road still serve as important transportation routes. Most of the balance of the streets, running north and south, are residential streets serving the homes that line them. The "functional classification" of streets identifies the role of each street within the roadway network. The roadway network and functional classification based on Core Graphic 13 of the Comprehensive Plan are shown on Figure 11-A. The highest functional classification "expressway" applies only to 1-64 which borders the neighborhood on the south side and has interchanges at the western and eastern corners of the neiqhborhood. An expressway carries high volume, high speed traffic and provides regional accessibility. The interchange at Mellwood Avenue is split allowing 1-64 eastbound traffic to access the expressway and 1-64 westbound to exit onto Mellwood Avenue. Story Avenue has the balance of this interchange. Mellwood and Story Avenues are both one way streets forming a "one-way couple". This creates an island of land bounded by Story Avenue, Spring Streets, Mellwood Avenue and Frankfort Avenue, just outside Clifton neighborhood, that traffic must circle when entering or exiting the expressway. "Major arterials" link major activity centers (employment, shopping, suburbs) within a metropolitan area and provide access to higher and lower function classifications. In Louisville the speed limit is generally set at 35 miles per hour on an urban arterial. Brownsboro Road, Frankfort Avenue I and one-way (north) Mellwood Avenue are the major arterials within the Clifton Neighborhood. Story Avenue is paired with JI Mellwood Avenue as a southbound major arterial outside the neighborhood. I There is one "minor arterial" in the Clifton neighborhood, Grinstead Drive. Minor arterials serve as links between expressways, major arterials and collectors. The speed limit is set at 35 miles per hour on this section of Grinstead Drive. There is also only one "collector" street in Clifton: Payne I Street (and that portion of Ewing connecting Payne Street with Frankfort Avenue). Collectors generally provide for internal movement within neighborhoods or as access to more heavily traveled facilities. The remaining streets within the Clifton neighborhood are classified as local streets. They serve as primary access to residences from streets of higher functional classifications. Many of the local streets in Clifton date from the nineteenth century. Some were never built or have been abandoned, but . they still exist as platted roads because they have not been officially "closed". These routes are shown shaded on figure 11-1. Narrow local street pavement widths are a problem in several parts of the neighborhood. b. Traffic Volumes Average daily traffic (ADT) is the volume, or amount, of traffic passing by a designated point on an average day. ADT's represent adjustments of actual counts to allow for statisti- cally determined variations in actual counts due to day of week, time of day, and month. 1-64 carries the highest volume of traffic of streets in the study area with 1985 and 1987 ADT's of between 50,000 and 57,000 vehicles at the east and west ends of the neighborhood. Figure 11-B identifies the ADT's for selected routes in the Clifton area and the year of survey. The highest traffic volumes on surface streets in the neighborhood are found on Brownsboro Road (10,000 to 20,500 ADT at the west and east ends of the neighborhood), Mellwood Avenue (7,400 to 12,200 ADT) and Frankfort Avenue (10,000 to 10,400 ADT at the east and west ends of the neighborhood). Parking is allowed, with directional peak hour prohibitions in some areas, along Frankfort Avenue. Only the portion of Brownsboro Road west of State Street allows parking during off peak hours. The balance of Brownsboro Road prohibits parking. c. Public Transportation Public transportation in the study area is provided by the Transit Authority of River City (TARC). There are five routes with direct service to the area and two express routes, without stops, that pass the area on 1-64. They are as follows: Market Street (Route No. 15) Muhammad Ali Boulevard (Route No'. 19) Oak Street (Route No. 25) Middletown (express on certain trips Route No. 31) River Road (Route No. 59) Breckenridge Express (Route No. 53) Plainview Express (Route No. 61) The location of these TARC routes within Clifton neighborhood are shown on Figure 11-C, "Bike Routes and TARC Routes". TARC routes are categorized according to function and general area served. The Market Street, Muhammad Ali Boulevard and Middletown routes are considered radial routes. River Road is a secondary radial route that connects the northeast area of Je'fferson County to other parts of the City of Louisville utilizing other bus routes. Its western terminal is at Browns- boro Road and Mellwood Avenue. The Oak Street route is circum- ferential route that connects the study area with St. Matthews in the east and central Louisville in the west. The Brecken- ridge Express and Plainview Express routes bypass the neighborhood. Express routes provide limited trips from one area of the city or county to another with limited stops at either end of the route. The Middletown route has express service during certain peak hours but functions as a regular radial route otherwise. Four of the five routes providing service to the neighborhood have buses running seven days a week. The River Road route only involves two morning and one evening eastbound and westbound trips during the week. No service is available on weekends. The Middletown route bypasses the Clifton neighborhood during peak hour express service. Wheelchair lifts are available in selected TARC bus trips along the Market Street, Oak Street and Muhammad Ali Boulevard routes. Kneeling buses are provided on routes throughout the TARC system on a random basis. These buses feature an air powered device which lowers entrance steps, making the coach more accessible to the elderly and physically handicapped who I can walk. 1 An additional public transportation service that TARC makes available to the elderly and handicapped is TARCLIFT. This service is provided for regular subscribers to the service and to those making advance call-in requests. The regular sub- scription is geared to meeting the routine needs of work or school trips. It operates Monday through Friday from 6:30 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. A person wishing to use this service sets up a regular pick-up and delivery schedule with TARC and must use the service at least three days a week. The "advance call-in" service, offered by TARC, operates on a demand-response basis. Buses operate from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Tuesday and Thursday. Weekend service is also available from 11:OO A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on Saturday and from 7:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. on Sundays. Reservations for transportation services are taken one week in advance by TARC. Generally, medical/- rehabilitation trips take first priority. Shopping or recreation trips are fulfilled after priority trips are accommodated. In addition to TARC's special handicapped sbrvice, the WHEELS program sponsored by the American Red Cross provides transportation services for the elderly and handicapped. The program consists of the use of several vehicles to provide access to nutrition, medical and social centers. Although there are some set routes used by the WHEELS program, schedule times and routes are generally determined by the number of people traveling to each location on a particular day. Individuals wishing to use the service are requested to schedule needed services at least five days in advance. d. Goods Movement Trucks. Traffic count data developed for the "1982 Vehicle Classification and Occupancy Survey: Louisville Urban Area" shows that Clifton neighborhood has significantly lower amounts of truck traffic than the city as a whole. Three percent of the vehicles on Brownsboro and Frankfort were found to be heavy trucks by the traffic counts, while the city average for major arterials was 7.5%. On Mellwood Avenue truck traffic was a slightly higher 4.1% of the vehicles, reflecting the proximity of the Interstate 64 interchange and industrial activity.

-Rail. CSX Railroad (formerly the Louisville and Nashville Railroad) operates a Class 1 single line track through the study area on the north side of Frankfort Avenue. A Class 1 railroad carrier is one which receives fifty million dollars or more in annual gross receipts from rail operations. The rail line is functionally classified as an "interstate mainline" and has a traffic density of 17.4 million annual gross ton-miles per mile according to the Kentucky Transporta- tion Cabinets' 1983 Rail Transportation in Kentucky report. The maximum speed for the twelve miles of mainline between Louisville and Anchorage is 50 miles per hour, but the average speed is 25 miles per hour through the study area. The tracks presently carry ten trains a day, five in either direction, according to Seaboard Systems. There are four at grade crossings within the study area, and all of these have automatic warning devices (flashing lights and signal bells) with gates. Railroad crossings and the markings/warning devices are shown in Figure 11-D "Traffic Control Devices". Within the study area there is one grade-separated crossing: the crossing at Pope Street. According to Seaboard Systems the average length of time that intersections are blocked by train traffic is 8-10 minutes, with the maximum delay being approximately 15 minutes. The trains cause intermittent traffic delays for north-south traffic within the study area, and the east-west commuter traffic where the tracks cross Frankfort Avenue. The grade-separated crossing at Pope Street places additional traffic on Pope Street and raises concern over the narrow pavement widths particularly for emergency vehicle access. The street is 30 feet wide in this area with parking on both sides. Traffic from opposing directions cannot pass freely. e. Sidewalk and Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalk and street crossing aids should ideally be provided to ensure safe pedestrian access to and from centers of activity. For Clifton neighborhood, the large number of blind and visually impaired persons in the neighborhood create special demands for quality pedestrian facilities and unique devices to aid in crossing streets. Figure 11-E shows the location of sidewalks and walk/wait signals in Clifton. Most areas have facilities but there are shortcomings in the availability and quality of the facilities. f. Bikeways The study area is served by an officially designated and marked bicycle route. The bicycle route serving the study area is part of a larger bikeway system serving most of the city. The bikeway system, including the portion in the study area, was established in 1977 with the adoption of the bikeway plan by the Kentuckiana Regional Planning and Development Agency (KIPDA). There is a Class I11 bike route in Clifton. Cyclists using these routes share the roadway directly with the motor- ist; streets with bikeway facilities are marked by signs. Only streets with sufficient roadway widths, low traffic volumes, low speed limits and continuity with the bike route system are selected. Roadways that are part of the Class I11 bike route I I include Payne Street, Ewing Avenue and the alley south of Frankfort Avenue. I A second bike route serving Clifton connects with the Payne Street route at Spring Street and goes from Downtown to Chero- kee Park. This is a Class I and Class I1 facility; portions of this bike route are an independent pathway, away from streets; other segments occupy part of the street, identified by strip- ing. Refer to Figure 11-C for the location of bike routes. g. Parking Facilities Parking facilities are an important part of a neighborhood's transportation system. Properly designed off-street parking in adequate amounts ensure traffic flows will not be disrupted by ingress and egress or parallel parking on-street. On-street parking continues to play an important role for the older residential areas of Clifton and for the Frankfort Avenue commercial strip. Small lot sizes in the older residential areas, a lack of usable alleys and narrow side yards result in many homes in the area utilizing on-street parking. The problems of on-street parking are intensified in areas where duplexes and multi-family units exist, off-street parking is not available and pavement widths are inadequate. Commercial uses along Frankfort Avenue depend on on-street parking. The on-street parking may interrupt traffic flows as automobiles enter and leave parking spaces. Parking along Mellwood Avenue and Brownsboro Road west of Drescher Bridge Avenue similarly impacts traffic flows.

3. Analysis of Existing Conditions a) Roadways Surface streets in Clifton experience some peak hour congestion primarily along Frankfort Avenue and Brownsboro Road and intersections wifh Ewing and Mellwood Avenue. A level of service analysis of six intersections was prepared by engineering staff of the Louisville Department of Public Works. It found the worst conditions ("F" level of service) occurred during peak hours at the Brownsboro Road and Ewing Avenue intersection, where delays average as high as 68.8 seconds per vehicle. Brownsboro Road and Mellwood Avenue intersection had a "D" level of service rating and much lower (27.9 second) average vehicular delays. Tables 11-1A and 1B summarize the level of service found at the two unsignalized and four signalized intersections studied by the Works Department. A more

*Level of Service (LOS) is defined by average delay, i.e., LOS "D" = 25.1 to 40.0 seconds, LOS "E" = 40.1 to 60 seconds and LOS "F' = greater than 60 seconds. detailed discussion of intersections is provided in part b) "Level of Service".

A more common problem affecting traffic flow in Clifton neighborhood is narrow pavement width. The development of much of the western part of the neighborhood predates the automobile. Other areas do not have alleys that might provide rear lot access for parking and distances between structures generally do not allow for side yard parking. Pavement widths less than 36 feet create difficulties for vehicles to pass freely with parking on both sides. Figure 11-F shows pavement width and highlights the location of streets with pavement widths of 36 feet and below. Thirty feet is the minimum width required for accommodating two-way traffic with one lane of parking. Creating one-way streets, widening existing pavements and parking prohibitions are three ways the narrow streets can be dealt with. In many cases the right-of-way exists for a somewhat wider pavement but such construction would remove sidewalks, narrow lot sizes further, remove mature trees and likely be very unpopular among affected residents. On-street parking is very much in demand in the residential areas. Lot sizes and configurations do not provide many on-site alternatives for parking and thus residents are also likely to oppose reducing existing on-street parking areas. Creating one-way streets may also create flow disruptions that make it undesirable to residents but it seems the least offensive of the three alternatives. Accidents. The City of Louisville Police Department provided information to the City of Louisville Department of Public Works on all accidents that occurred in the Clifton neighborhood during the last two years. Six locations had 10 or more accidents occurring during 1987 and 1988. They are shown in Table 11-3. The highest number of accidents occurred at the intersections of Frankfort and Mellwood Avenues (27) and Brownsboro Road and Mellwood Avenue (23). When adjusted for traffic volumes the intersection with the highest "accident rate" (see Table 11-3 for an explanation) was at Frankfort Avenue and Pope Street, an unsignalized intersection. (Note the City of Louisville Department of Public Works will suggest physical improvements which can be made at these intersections) . b. Level of Service A street intersection can be rated in terms of how well that intersection handles the traffic flow. The level of service ratings range from "A" to "'3". Rating "A" implies free flowing traffic conditions. Ratings "A' and "B" indicate generally good traffic flow with capacity to handle additional vehicles. Intersections with a rating of "C" experience acceptable delays. Rating "D" indicates almost unstable flow, although delays are tolerable. Rating "EM implies substantial congestion with traffic making frequent stops and starts. Rating "F" indicates traffic is backed up or jammed during peak traffic periods. Table 11-1 shows the peak hour level of service for key intersections in the Clifton neighborhood. Summary. Only the Brownsboro Road and Ewing Avenue intersection had an unacceptable level of service (LOS). This intersection had an LOS of "F" for P.M. peak hour volumes. The Brownsboro Road and Mellwood Avenue intersection had a "D" LOS for the peak hour. Level of service was also analyzed for unsignalized intersections at the Frankfort Avenue and Pope Street, and Ewing Avenue and Payne Streets.* The worst LOS found at the unsignalized intersection was southbound Pope Street, which was found to be LOS "D". A more detailed exami- nation of problems specific to the Brownsboro Road and Ewing Avenue intersection is provided below. The southbound approach to the Frankfort and Ewing Avenues intersection on Ewing did have an "F" LOS due to the rail crossing but the overall intersection functioned at "C" LOS. However, overall the street system functions very well in the Clifton area. Brownsboro Road and Ewing Avenue Intersection. Capacity analysis to determine level of service indicates that this inteksection operates at a LOS 'F' during the evening peak hour. This is a "worst case" modeling of conditions at the intersection and gives emphasis to problems experienced by eastbound Brownsboro Road left turns due to the absence of an exclusive left turn arrow in the signal sequence. However, a left turn to the portion of Ewing Avenue north of Brownsboro Road provides access only to a dead-end stub into a small commercial area for which limited need is apparent. The traffic volumes used in the model for the peak hour traffic indicated 1,283 through vehicles eastbound on Brownsboro Road, 112 right turns and only six (6) left turns. In addition to level of service problems, some intersections experience inadequate sight distances that create driving . hazards. A specific example is the Pope Street and Frankfort Avenue intersection. Cars parked along Frankfort limit visibility for vehicles coming northbound on Pope Street. A possible way suggested to improve safety at this location is providing a signal or perhaps limiting some of the parking areas. North Jane Street at Brownsboro Road is another problem area for sight distances. The incline of the road and shrubs along Brownsboro Road and the slightly off-set opposing intersection of Mount Holly Avenue add to the confusion at this intersection. A third area where sight distance problems occur is the intersection of Pope Street with the alley next to the

*For unsignalized intersections, LOS is determined for each directional movement but not for the intersection as a whole. Table 11-1 shows these results. railroad. The railroad overpass and curve in Pope Street make it very difficult for drivers vehicles coming out of the alley to see northbound traffic on Pope Street. c. Public Transportation Existing bus service in Clifton neighborhood appears to be adequate. The residential layout of the neighborhood was somewhat based on a street car transit system that ran east and west and today's bus lines are the successors to that system. Most residents are within a short walk of a bus line. TABLE 11-1: ANALYSIS OF KEY INTERSECTIONS (Level of Service) A. Signalized Intersections LOS Inter- Inter- Signalized Signal Cycle By section section Intersection TYPe Length Approach Approach Delay LOS (Sec. ) (Sec.) EB F Brownsboro & Actuated 59 WB D 68.8 F Ewing NB C SB B

Brownsboro & Actuated 78 WB D 27.9 D Me1 lwood NB D SB B EB B *Frankfort & Semi- 64 WB B 21.1 C Ewing Actuated NB C SB F EB B Frankfort & Semi- 80 WB C 13.9 B Mellwood Actuated NB B

B: Unsiqnalized Intersections Unsignalized Major Minor Intersection Type Street Street LOS

Frankfort & 4-Leg Frankfort A Pope Pope-NB C Pope-SB D

Ewing & 3-Leg Ewing A Payne Payne-EB A

Source: City of Louisville Public Works Department; Pat Johnson. Four of the five routes that serve Clifton neighborhood link it directly with the downtown area of the city and connect there with routes going throughout the city and county. The fifth route is a specialty route linking the neighborhood with the Prospect area of the county. The other four routes offer fairly frequent service and experience heavy ridership. Potential transit users can be discouraged from using transit due to problems with convenience waiting times accessibility, and comfort for the passengers. According to TARC a three to four block walk (a mile) is an acceptable distance to travel to reach a bus stop although a one to two block distance is more desirable. The residents of homes in the vicinity of the South Keats Avenue and Payne Street and Brownsboro Road and Drescher Bridge Avenue intersections have the greatest walking distances to travel to a bus stop in the neighborhood, about 1,000 feet. Bus shelters also improve the transit users safety and comfort. There are only three shelters in the Clifton neighborhood. d. Goods Movement Existing truck traffic levels on the major arterials in Clifton neighborhood are only about half the average city wide for arterial streets. However, because there are some industries and several commercial uses in the neighborhood that use heavy trucks, the trucks' use of residential streets to cross the neighborhood north and south poses a problem. The narrowness and steepness of the streets intensifies the problem. Further, some of the brick streets in the area cannot take the loads carried by heavy trucks. The CSX railroad creates several crossing problems to which residents apparently have become fairly well adjusted. The nominal group sessions mentioned the railroad in only one of the three groups and no one voted for it to be one of their top five problems. The Pope Street grade separated crossing allows some freedom of movement within the neighborhood when trains are passing. However, the Frankfort Avenue and Ewing Avenue crossings can produce substantial backups of traffic. Sidewalks and Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalks exist throughout most of the Clifton neighborhood. Along the Frankfort Avenue commercial strip, repaving has lowered the separation between street and sidewalk. Elsewhere in the neighborhood the age of the sidewalk and tree roots have created tripping hazards. Figure 11-E: Pedestrian Facilities shows the location of tripping hazards observed by the field survey crews in the fall of 1988. Sidewalks are absent on several streets, or on one side of the streets. Areas with sidewalk deficiencies include the south side of Brownsboro Road between State Street and Haldeman Avenue; the north end of Haldeman Avenue at Brownsboro Road where sidewalks are absent in a very steep area with rock walls on either side of the roadway; parts of Sycamore Avenue, North Jane and parts of North Clifton Avenue in the vicinity of Kroger where sidewalks are not provided; and, finally, absence of sidewalks for portions of streets connecting the Crescent Springs Condominium to the balance of the neighborhood (Ewing Avenue, Keats Avenue, Jane Street and Saunders) and some sections of the streets that have been constructed recently (Jane Street and Keats Avenue). (Topography played a role in the absence of streets in these areas.) Walklwait signals are installed at three of the intersections along Frankfort Avenue and one along Brownsboro as shown on Figure 11-E: Pedestrian Facilities. Possible locations needing pedestrian crossing facilities include the Haldeman and Frankfort Avenues intersection and the Ewing Avenue and Browns- boro Road intersection. Pedestrian traffic from the north side of Brownsboro Road in the vicinity of Krogers is also high. Absence of stop lights in this area create problems for installation of a pedestrian walklwait facility. Special pedestrian facilities for the blind are provided in the Clifton neighborhood, primarily along Frankfort Avenue. These are generally audio signals at intersection that supplement the walklwait signals. The presence of a large blind and sight impaired population places additional emphasis on the need for safe sidewalks free of tripping hazards and obstructions. The location of special facilities for the blind are shown on Figure 11-E: Pedestrian Facilities. f. Bikeway Facilities The Payne Street bike route provides bicyclists in the neighborhood with a direct connection to the only Class I bicycle facility in the city that travels along Beargrass Creek to Cherokee Park and along Spring Street and Elm Street to downtown Louisville. Payne Street is a low traffic volume street with a 25 mile per hour speed limit that provides for fairly safe bicycle usage. All roadways in Louisville, with the exception of limited access expressways, allow bicycle usage. The topography, brick streets and high traffic volume on a street like Brownsboro Road are factors which detract from bicycle use in the area. g. Parking Parking is inadequate in several of the residential areas of Clifton particularly in the higher dwelling unit density areas. Narrow streets and a lack of off-street facilities in these areas compound the problems experienced. Automobile ownership is increasing and on a per unit basis single family owner occupied units generally have substantially more vehicles than apartments. Thus, while the number of rental units has declined, automobile ownership may have increased. The table below illustrates how at a total Census Tract level automobile ownership changed from 1970 to 1980 in the vicinity of Clifton neighborhood*.

TABLE 11-2 AUTOMOBILE OWNERSHIP: CLIFTON VICINITY Census Total Available Automobiles per Unit Tract Occupied 0 1 2 3 or more (Year) Units # % # % # % # % (1970) 7 4 1,160 281 24 598 52 249 21 32 3 80 395 111 28 225 57 40 10 19 5 81 1,314 439 33 684 52 162 12 29 2 Total (19-70) 2,869 831 29% 1,507 53% 451 16% 80 3%

(1980) 7 4 1,118 203 18 553 49 264 24 98 9 80 372 100 27 169 45 54 15 49 13 8 1 1,154 323 28 478 41 322 28 31 3 Total (1980) 2,644 626 24% 1,200 45% 640 24% 178 7%

* This includes population outside Clifton neighborhood and Census Tract boundaries are slightly different for 1970 and 1980. Source: 1970 and 1980 Census of Population and Housing. Totals may vary due to boundaries.

The table above illustrates reasons that parking has become a complex issue in the Clifton neighborhood (as well as many other areas of the city). The apartments and duplexes in the neighborhood are not new, but auto ownership for their occupants and that of the single family homes has increased. For 1970 to 1980 the three Census Tracts show 7.8% fewer units and, assuming only three cars in those units with three or more, a 13.8% increase in automobiles. It is unlikely that this trend has abated since 1980 and thus parking has become an issue in the residential parts of the neighborhood. In commercial areas along Frankfort Avenue there is generally adequate off-street parking to satisfy demand although some deficiencies that occur in the area. 4. Issues and Problems 1) Sidewalks are in disrepair in several parts of the neighborhood. Tripping hazards, tree limbs blocking the sidewalks and generally overgrown sidewalks detract from the safety and appearance of the neighborhood. 2) Pedestrian access for the Brownsboro Road commercial areas and other destinations is inadequate. I Heavy automobile traffic and truck traffic on residential streets present a hazard to pedestrians, particularly I children, and a noise nuisance. Brick streets should be protected. Steep inclines on neighborhood streets create extremely hazardous conditions when ice or snow is present. Pedestrian access for handicapped persons is lacking in many areas of the neighborhood. Some of the facilities for the visually impaired do not function as intended. Improper alley usage between Peterson Avenue and Ewing Avenue parallel to Frankfort Avenue. Dangerous intersections have been identified at eight ! locations in the neighborhood based on accident studies and neighborhood comments. Narrow streets in the neighborhood cause problems. Dark streets and alleys are a problem in several areas. 5. Government and Non-Government Actions The provision of transportation facilities, with the exception of railroads, is primarily the responsibility of government. The issues identified in the previous section of this plan are the results of actions and inactions by government and inappropriate behavior by Clifton residents, commercial establishments and commuter traffic of private autos and business vehicles. This section will summarize major actions taken by both government and private groups which have affected the quality and quantity of transportation facilities in Clifton neighborhood. a. Roadways The core of the neighborhood's street system, Brownsboro Road and Frankfort Avenue, was initiated in the first half of the nineteenth century. Frankfort Avenue was authorized in 1818 as the Shelbyville and Louisville Turnpike and Brownsboro Road was authorized in 1850 as the Jefferson and Brownsboro Turnpike.

Subsequent development of the neighborhood street system in ' Clifton was the result of individual actions by developers. Development has taken place over a 140-year period, resulting in some shortcomings of the local street system. Automobiles were not a consideration when the older areas of the neighborhood were developed. Even the horse drawn and later electric street cars only reinforced the use of local streets as a pedestrian connector in the neighborhood. Today, the narrow streets built or laid out in the early days of the neighborhoods development, are problem areas for parking, emergency access and through traffic. More recently the Federal Interstate Highway system has provided the Clifton Neighborhood with a reduction in through traffic on both of its major radial arterial streets while providing high speed access to the rest of metropolitan Louis- ville and particularly the Central Business District. Inter- state 64 did not create severe barriers between the Clifton neighborhood and areas to the west. The old quarry bluffs and Beargrass Creek already established a "boundary" in this area. The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KTC) maintains road surfaces and through a contract with the City Works Department provides funding for traffic signals and route number signage on state maintained routes in the neighborhood. These include Brownsboro Road, Frankfort Avenue, Grinstead Drive, Mellwood Avenue and Interstate 64. In addition, KTC administers federal monies: Federal Aid to Urban Cities, Rail-Highway Grade Crossing Fund and the Safer Off-System Road Fund. These are used for improvements initiated on urban system streets by local government. State and/or city governments must provide matching money on most federally funded road improvement projects. Improvement and maintenance of all Clifton study area streets not maintained by the KTC is the responsibility of Louisville's Public Works Department. Under this responsibility the Public Works Department resurfaces, cleans and removes snow from streets. The Public Works Department also prepares analyses of high accident areas and intersection studies for levels of service to facilitate the flow of traffic in the neighborhood. The Works Department also regulates the on-street parking in the study area, establishing no parking zones and restricting hours when parking is allowed. These restrictions provide space for bus stops, handicapped parking and prevent traffic hazards from inadequate sight distances, narrow movement lanes, or an inadequate turning radius. Off-street parking is regulated through Zoning District Regula- tions and enforced by the Zoning Enforcement Division of the ~uildingInspection Department. Many of the business locations along Frankfort Avenue were constructed before zoning regulations were established and are lacking adequate off-street parking. However, the regulations do apply to new construction, new uses requiring additional parking in existing structures and the expansion of existing structures if the new use or expansion will result in a demand for more than three parking spaces. Several recent rehabilitations of existing commercial structures apparently have not conformed to this regulation. Zoning District Regulations parking requirements for various use categories are listed in Appendix 11. b. Goods Movement The maintenance and improvement of the railroad tracks in the Clifton Neighborhood are the responsibility of the CSX Corpora- tion. The maintenance and improvement of railroad crossings are the joint responsibility of the City of Louisville and CSX. The Ewing Avenue crossing was reconstructed in 1985. CSX is also responsible for installation and maintenance of the warning signs, signals, crossing gates, and restoring adjacent facilities damage through repair activities. The City of Louisville Works Department is responsible for signage showing truck traffic restrictions. The city does not designate truck routes. Enforcement is the responsibility of the City of Louisville Police Department. The city provides for fines of between $25 and $100 for violations of truck traffic restrictions. For this process to work individuals must report offenses as they occur. c. Public Transportation Public transportation in Clifton is provided primarily by the Transit Authority of River City (TARC). Transit service depends heavily on federal funds to subsidize operating costs and capital expenditures. Urban Mass Transportation Adminis- tration (UMTA) under Section 9 of the Surface Transportation Act of 1982 provides these funds. 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 9 funds which can be used to finance up to 50% of operating costs and 80% of capital expenditures. The primary source of funding for the WHEELS Program is the United Way Campaign's allocation to the Ame~icanRed Cross. Some special federal funds (UMTA Section 16 (b) (2) are available to transportation providers to the elderly and are a possible source of funding for the WHEELS Program). Two recent studies have ex~loredtrans~ortation alternatives for the Clifton area as of areawi>e transportation systems; Louisville and Southern Indiana Corridors Analysis (June, 1981) and the Eastern Corridor Transportation Study (July, 1984). both prepared for the Kentuckiana Reqional Planninq and ~evelb~mentAgency by Schimpeler Corradino Associates. he 1981 study examined alternative improvement concepts for eight transportation corridors, including Frankfort Avenue. This report recommended construction of a busway in the L&N right- of-way along Frankfort Avenue, with at-grade and elevated sections and a limited number of access stations. This busway would be part of an integrated system for the city and would

terminate- at Hurstbourne Lane near 1-64 and at Lakeland Avenue in Anchorage on the east and originate downtown at a "transit I mall". The more recent Eastern Corridor Transportation Study maintains the busway recommendation as a possible long-term solution. Because of its high cost ($5 to $10 million per mile), however, this report focuses on different transportation improvements. d. Pedestrian Facilities Facilities for pedestrians are the responsibility of the Public Works Department and adjacent property owners. The Department determines the need for pedestrian signals. It also reviews proposed transit shelters and requires that wheelchair ramps be provided as part of any project necessitating reconstruction of sidewalks. Construction and maintenance of sidewalks generally are the responsibility of adjoining property owners. The City of Louisville Department of Public Works is responsible for seeing that property owners maintain the sidewalks in front of their property. They will site hazardous locations and require that the property owner provide the repairs or will make the repairs and place a lien against the property. The city does however provide forgiveable loans to home owners who repair their sidewalks and remain in the homes for an additional five years. A low interest loan program is available for sidewalk repairs in commercial areas. Rental residential property is not eligible. Details of both of these programs are provided in Appendix 11. e. Bikeways Bikeways are also a local government concern. The ~entuckiana 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. Expansion of the bikeway system has been curtailed because funding is not available. f. Emergency Access The narrow streets and topography of the Clifton Neighborhood and the railroad create problems for emergency access, particularly fire engines. The restriction of on-street parking in areas where it may impact emergency access is the responsibility of the City of Louisville Works Department and the Louisville Police Department is responsible for enforcement B PROJECTIONS I . 11 This section of the plan develops a likely future scenario for transportation facilities in the Clifton neighborhood if the recommendations contained within this plan are not implemented and the current practices of government and other groups affecting transportation continue. The transportation network consists of the streets, sidewalks, parking (on-street and off-street), transit, bike routes, goods movement by truck and rail and the secondary signage, warning and traffic control system necessary for functional interaction. 1. Projected Future Conditions If current trends continue, peak hour problems will continue at the intersections of Ewing Avenue and Brownsboro Road. No strong increases in car or truck traffic are anticipated due to population growth or commercial activity. Train related blockages of Frankfort Avenue and Ewing Avenue will continue to be a nuisance. Parking inadequacies, particularly in the residential areas with narrow street widths will continue to worsen. Individual commercial activities may create worsened conditions along Frankfort Avenue and west of Drescher Bridge Avenue on Brownsboro Road. Truck traffic will continue to use residential streets in an inappropriate manner and will damage brick streets. Utility work will also add to the damages to the remaining brick streets. Sidewalks will continue to deteriorate due to tree roots, weeds and age. Deterioration will negatively impact the residential and commercial areas. Negative impacts along Frankfort Avenue will be compounded by curbs that disappear due to resurfacing operating raising the pavement levels. Cars will park on sidewalks and runoff will not be conveyed to storm sewers adequately. Pedestrian safety will be at a risk. Transit service in general and bicycle facilities will remain at current levels. 2. Comprehensive Plan Guidelines The following Comprehensive Plan guidelines are relevant to the future transportation system under the above scenario. T-1 Provide that all development and land use changes have adequate street facilities to handle anticipated traffic. T-2 Provide for the movement of pedestrians through the construction of: a) walkways from residential areas to recreation areas, schools and shopping facilities in the neighborhood and b) walkways for access to transit stops and

c) walkways where heavy pedestrian movements may be anticipated between land uses and d) pedestrian overpasses/underpasses when street closings are impractical and vehicular and pedestrian volumes warrant such separation and e) walkways through expressway interchange areas where appropriate. T-3 Provide for the movement of bicycles from residential areas to neighborhood recreation areas, schools, shopping facilities and major employment centers. T-5 Provide adequate rights-of-way to accommodate required and anticipated roadway, walkway and bikeway improvements through dedication. T-11 Provide off-street parking and loading of sufficient quantity and adequate design for the type and intensity of development, for the mode of access to the development and for its users. Inadequate intersections would conflict with Guideline T-1 and deteriorated sidewalks would conflict with Guideline T-2. Bicycle facilities will be adequate in the neighborhood although parking/- storage facilities are not provided. The existing narrow streets in the area will continue to conflict with the intent of Guideline T-5. Finally, the provision of off-street parking along Frankfort Avenue and the area west of Drescher Bridge Avenue along Brownsboro Road will probably continue to be inadequate and thus in conflict with Guideline T-11. Conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan Guidelines indicate a need for corrective actions or enforcement of existing regulations in order to support the efforts to revitalize the neighborhood. C. ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS This section of the plan develops the recommended policies and specific actions to address Clifton's transportation needs. The issues and problems were developed from the responses received at the first public meeting, discussions with the Task Force and a review of the existing and projected conditions. A list of alternatives for correcting the problems identified was developed by the Planning Commission staff, reviewed with the Task Force and recommended alternatives selected. The issues statements and the selected alternatives are shown below. This section concludes with the recommended transportation plan. 1. Alternative Strategies a. Issue: Sidewalks are in disrepair in several parts of the I neighborhood. Tripping hazards, tree limbs blocking the sidewalks and generally overgrown grass along the sidewalks detract from the safety and appearance of the neighborhood. Alternatives: 1) Seek public investment in rehabilitating sidewalks in front of residential and commercial uses in the area.

2) Encourage better private maintenance of sidewalks in the area.

3) Educate neighborhood residents about the impor- I tance of maintenance and legal requirements Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 are recommended. A joint private/public effort to provide sidewalk and curb improvements in the commercial areas along Frankfort Avenue is recommended. Tripping hazards identified on Figure 11-E should be reviewed by Public Works and cited. An educational newsletter should be published making property owners aware of the forgiveable loan program for owner occupied units and the low interest loan program for commercial properties before citing owners with the tripping hazards. b. Issue: Pedestrian access for the Brownsboro Road commercial areas and other destinations is inadequate. Alternatives: 1) Encourage public construction of sidewalks in areas where they are lacking throughout the community. 2) Encourage private construction of sidewalks.

3) Develop a pedestrian access plan for the Clifton area, funding sources and a timetable for its implementation. 4) Do nothing and allow people to continue to walk in the roadways. Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 are recommended. The access plan should establish priorities for construction of new sidewalks. Funding should be sought to provide sidewalks at Haldeman Avenue and Browns- boro Road, along Brownsboro Road from State Street to Haldeman; on the east and west side of the Kentucky School for the Blind; on Sycamore Avenue, North Clifton Avenue and Jane Street in the vicinity of Krogers; connections for the Crescent Springs development with Frankfort Avenue along either South Jane Street, Keats Avenue, or South Ewing Avenue. Creation of pedestrian access along the unbuilt right-of-way of Ewing Avenue to Grinstead Drive and along Grinstead Drive extending out of the neighborhood to Cherokee Park is encouraged. Design of new sidewalk facilities should allow for steep embankments and protection of brick streets. Doing nothing and having people walk in the streets is not felt to be an adequate response. The neighborhood is compact enough to utilize pedestrian facilities and the number of blind and visually impaired persons in the area make it imperative that these facilities are high quality. Although traffic volumes are low on many of the neighborhood streets, walking in them is not safe. c. Issue: Heavy automobile traffic and truck traffic on residential streets present a hazard to pedestrians, particularly children, and a noise nuisance. Alternatives: 1) Install additional stop signs and other traffic I control measures to redirect through traffic or slow its passage. 2) Develop alternate routes for traffic currently passing through residential areas. 3) Lower speed limits and strictly enforce. 4) Approach businesses on reducing truck related nuisances. All four alternatives are recommended. Stop signs should be used judiciously as they may increase congestion, noise and air pollution or create accident problems. Alternate routes for heavy truck traffic can be established by posting streets where truck traffic is prohibited and enforcing restrictions. This effort combined with an outreach meeting with the businesses generating the traffic can help prevent hard feelings and prevent unexpected hardships due to changes. Some businesses, because of their locations, must use neighborhood streets for access. Speed limits probably cannot be lowered but the existing 25 mile per hour limits can be more strictly enforced. (Note : The Public Works Department does not endorse alternative 1 due to adverse impacts on traffic flows and accidents). KIPDA has expressed similar reservations about alternatives 1) and 3). Refer to Appendix IV, KIPDA letter). d. Issue: Brick streets and stone curbs need protection. I I Alternatives: 1) Restrict truck traffic. 2) Require utilities and public works to restore roads to original condition when working in the

area. I Both alternatives are supported. Truck traffic is seen as a primary cause of traffic damage on these streets due to weight. Enforcing restrictions on the use of residential streets by trucks will help. However, public utilities and the Public Works Department cause much of damage to these streets. After underground utilities work, they destroy stone curbs, replace brickwork poorly or routinely pave over the streets. Brick streets and stone curbs are an important historic resource for Clifton neighborhood. Protection of the remaining areas of brick streets and stone curbs require extra effort from government and utilities, but it should be undertaken. e. Issue: Steep inclines on neighborhood streets, particularly along Brownsboro Road, create extremely hazardous conditions when ice or snow is present. Alternatives: 1) Add these streets to the Works Department's "priority" (for sanding/snow removal) list. i 2) Prohibit use during hazardous periods. 1 I 3) Add warning signs about the hazards. I Alternatives 1 and 3 are recommended. If the Works Department can get to these streets sooner they will not pose as much of a hazard. However, because some slopes face north, snow and ice may persist. Warning signs are needed to prevent accidents. Alternative 2 was considered but rejected because in some areas residents would not have alternatives because they park on the hills. f. Issue: Pedestrian access for handicapped persons is lacking in many areas of the neighborhood. The facilities for the visually impaired do not function as intended in some cases. Alternatives: 1) Work with the Kentucky School for the Blind to ~ develop preferred pedestrian routes and syste- I matic improvements. 2) Construct wheelchair ramps as part of sidewalk reconstruction process. 3) Require commercial land use compliance with federal handicapped access regulations. 4) Request a policy in the Public Works Department to quickly handle the requests for maintenance of special facilities for the blind. All four of the alternatives are recommended by the Task Force. It is probably impossible for sighted persons to fully comprehend the needs of blind persons and those who are visually impaired. The staff of the School for the Blind identified two specific improvements they feel are necessary that have been incorporated in the transportation improvement recommendations for the neighborhood. Audio crossings have been suggested for the Ewing and Frankfort Avenues and Brownsboro Road and North Clifton Avenue intersections. Several suggestions raised at the neighborhood nominal group session by members of the blind community pointed out that devices intended to assist them in crossing streets had the opposite effect when the noise they make is so loud that a moving vehicle cannot be heard over it. Creation of a special procedure in the Works Department to make sure that these facilities (and any future expansion of them) work as intended or are repaired rapidly, seems very important. Adding wheelchair ramps in sidewalk reconstruction efforts and making sure that businesses in the commercial sidewalk reconstruction areas also provide handicapped parking and access as required by federal and local regulation is also suggested. It may be possible that the unique situation in the Clifton neighborhood could qualify it for some type of demonstration grant from a public or private source to develop an effective pedestrian network in the area. g. Issue: Alleys are used improperly between Peterson Avenue and Ewing Avenue parallel to Frankfort Avenue. Alternatives: 1) Create one-way alleys in opposite direction of improper flow. 2) Add speed control signage along the alleys involved.

3) Create alternative routes to handle the traffic currently using the alleys. 4) Do nothing at this time and work with Crescent Hill to deal with this problem. Alternative 4 is recommended. This problem, though identified by Clifton residents is actually located in Crescent Hill. The Task Force will work with Crescent Hill to solve the problem but consider it Crescent Hill's primary responsibility. Two of the three alternatives which were not selected were felt to be possible solutions to the problem but not for Clifton to initiate. An alley is used to bypass the light at Frankfort Avenue and Ewing Avenue and the stop sign at Frankfort Avenue and Peterson Avenue. A one-way alley or two one-way alleys meeting in the middle and exiting through a business onto Frankfort would stop or slow improper usage. Extending Ewing Avenue to Grinstead Drive would provide an alternative to Peterson Avenue for exiting the neighborhood. I The speed control alternative was rejected due to existing 15 mile per hour speed limits. h. Issue: Dangerous intersections in the neighborhood. Alternatives: 1) Encourage the City of Louisville Public Works Department to modify the intersections. 2) Add warning signs at these intersections. Alternative 1 is recommended.

TABLE 11-3

Location/ # of Accidents # of Accidents Total Accident* Intersection 1987 1988 Rate (Auq. 1987- 1988)

Frankfort & Mellwood 16 I1 27 1.501

Brownsboro & Mellwood 6 17 2 3 1.471

Frankfort & Pope 7 10 17 2.025

Brownsboro & Ewinq 8 8 16 .860

Frankfort & Ewinq 10 5 15 1.057

Brownsboro & Jane 4 7 11 .758

Source: Louisville Department of Public Works and Louisville Police Department: 1989.

*Accident Rate = number of accidents per million vehicles entering the intersection annually. Warning signs were not felt to be effective. i. Issue: Narrow streets limit traffic movement in the neighborhood. Alternatives: 1) Widen streets. This could result in loss of yards. 2) Limit on-street parking. This may create parking hardships elsewhere. Widening streets or removing parking could also increase traffic speeds through residential areas. 3) Create one way streets. 4) Rezone areas where parking problems exist to prevent more cars. 5) Create alleys in areas of the neighborhood where they are absent. 6) Do nothing. The Task Force recommended specific application of alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4. These are reflected on Figure 11-H: Recommended Transportation Improvements and Figure I-G: Zoning Change Recommen- dations. 2. Recommended Transportation Plan The recommended transportation plan for Clifton neighborhood sets forth guidelines for the future management and improvement of the study area's transportation system. The guidelines were developed from nominal group responses received at the first public meeting in the neighborhood and refined by the review of the neighborhood Task Force, meetings with the City of Louis- ville Public Works Department representatives and review of existing conditions in the area. The recommended transporta,tion plan is an application of the goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan targeted toward solving problems and issues in the Clifton neighborhood. The recommended transportation plan consists of a set of guidelines, a future transportation map, and detailed maps for each of the problem intersections in the neighborhood. Once the recommended plan is approved by the Board of Aldermen, it will be used to formulate budgets for general revenue fund ward specific allocations and Community Development Block Grant allocations. Proposed city-wide programs and plans affecting Clifton will be reviewed in relation to the neighborhood plan. Further, the Kentuckiana Regional Planning and Development Agency (KIPDA) may include the plan's recommendations in the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program. a. Transportation Guidelines Pedestrian Facilities 1. Construct the pedestrian access facilities shown on Figure 11-H. 2. Public and private investment in sidewalk maintenance and repair is encouraged. Informing residents about legal requirements for maintenance is also encouraged. 3. Commercial areas are encouraged to comply with regulations concerning handicapped access in any repairs or reconstruction of sidewalks. 4. Work with the Kentucky School for the Blind to monitor the pedestrain improvements they need and to ensure adequate maintenance of existing facilities. Traffic Safety 5. Add steep streets in the area to the City's priority list for snow removal and sanding. 6. Improve hazardous intersections. (See Figure 11-1.) 7. Add stop signs or traffic barriers, create one-way street couples, or lower speed limits or widen streets where traffic safety hazards exist. Inappropriate Use 8. Work with businesses to reduce truck traffic in inappropriate areas and restrict trucks to main thoroughfares.

9. Seek cooperation of the Crescent Hill neighborhood in solving the problems of cars cutting through an alley south and parallel to Frankfort Avenue between Ewing Avenue and Peterson Avenue. Parking 10. Limit on-street parking to allow safer traffic flows on narrow streets where alternative parking exists. 11. Require the provision of adequate parking as a part of new development. Appearance 12. Utilities should restore streets to their original condition (including brick streets) after work in the area as required by the Department of Public Works. Property owners should notify the Public Works Department (625-3111) whenever they spot improper asphalt repaving over a brick road or alley way. D. IMPLEMENTATION This section of the Clifton neighborhood plan identifies agencies responsible for implementing the transportation guidelines listed in the previous section and the estimated cost of proposed improvements where known, and potential funding sources.

1. Pedestrian Facilities

Guidelines 1, 2 and 3 concern the provision and maintenance of pedestrian facilities. Figures 11-E and 11-H provide loca- tional information about where specific facilities are needed or problems needing correction exist. a. Construction of New Sidewalks Task Force members have placed a high priority on provision of sidewalks. Some areas lack sidewalks and Figure 11-H shows the location of the missing sections. A portion of the sidewalks identified on this map are being considered for FY 88-89 construction (roughly 1,000 linear feet of sidewalk along parts of North Clifton, Sycamore Avenue and State Street) and other areas are suggested for inclusion in the FY 89-90 budget. A sidewalk has been recommended for the unbuilt right-of-way of Ewing Avenue connecting to Grinstead Drive. Funding sources include the Community Development Block Grants (CDBG's), General Fund commitments from the City of Louisville, Aldermanic discretionary funds and federal grant sources related to provision of specialized pedestrian facilities for handicapped persons under the Transit Program for the Elderly and Handicapped [Section 16 (b) (2)] of the Urban Mass Transit Act. The cost per linear foot of sidewalk varies by the topography, existence of rock close to the surface, and the need for cutting into rock faces, as would be necessary in areas along Haldeman Avenue and State Street at Brownsboro Road. In less constrained areas sidewalks can be installed for approximately $23.50 per linear foot. There are approximately 20,000 feet of new sidewalk proposed for the neighborhood which would cost approximately $470,000 to install plus any costs associated with rough terrain. b. Sidewalk Reconstruction and Maintenance Existing sidewalks in the neighborhood contain numerous tripping hazards. Figure 11-E shows the location of these problem areas as noted during the Planning Commission staff's field survey of the neighborhood. Low hanging branches, vegetation that blocks sidewalks and grass that overgrows the sidewalks are problems throughout the neighborhood and pose especially difficult hazards for visually impaired, elderly and handicapped persons. Rough pedestrian facilities at the railroad crossings are also a problem. The Clifton Community Council should help inform residents of the neighborhood about the problems with sidewalk maintenance and, in locations where tripping hazards exist, encourage the property owners to seek repairs. If the tripping hazard is "cited" by the Public Works Department a property owner residing at the cited location may seek a forgivable loan (explained in greater detail in Appendix 11) for the cost of the repairs. Owners of commercial structures can seek a reduced interest rate loan for repairs of citable (by Public Works Department inspectors) hazardous/tripping conditions. More detail on this program is also provided in Appendix 11. The streetscape plan for Frankfort Avenue commercial area should incorporate sidewalk and curb replacement recommendations. This may involve surface treatment that creates a unifying element for the commercial area or incorporates "historic" materials such as brick or cobblestone. c. Handicapped Access The streetscape improvements recommended for the Frankfort Avenue commercial area should incorporate handicapped access facilities as required by law. Further, to the extent possible, the design plan should incorporate special facilities for blind and visually handicapped persons. These include audio signals, curb cut and wheel chair ramps with warning strips, braille signage, and guided hand rail or audio walkways in hazardous or heavily traveled areas. The development of these facilities should be an integral part of the development of the overall commercial areas streetscape plan. Federal funding assistance should be pursued for the cost of these facilities. In the absence of direct grants Community Develop- ment Block Grants should be sought as a source of funding. Representatives of the blind community in the Clifton neighborhood attended the public meetings and participated on the Task Force. The strong emphasis on better sidewalk maintenance and construction in the transportation section reflects concerns that they described to the Task Force. Another aspect of having special audio facilities to assist blind and visually impaired individuals in the neighborhood is the need for timely maintenance. The plan suggests the City of Louisville Public Works Department develop a procedure to quickly handle maintenance needs and that it publicize the contact phone number in the blind community. As more facilities are added in the area the frequency of maintenance problems will likely increase. 2. Traffic Safety Traffic-safety related improvements have been suggested by the task force to correct deficiencies in the areas. These conditions were identified by a survey of the neighborhood residents and an analysis of high accident locations prepared by the Engineering section of the City of Louisville Department of Public Works. Accident data was provided by the Louisville Police Department. The City of Louisville Works Department will be the primary agency responsible for implementing transportation guidelines 4, 5, and 6. a. Intersection Improvements The engineering section of the City of Louisville Public Works Department identified six problem intersections having ten or more accidents during 1987 and 1988. Table 11-3 identifies the problem locations and Figure 11-1 shows the location. The staff of the engineering section of the City of Louisville Public Works Department prepared detailed analysis of the six intersections-and made the following recommendations. *Frankfort Avenue and Mellwood Avenue - Install an "All Red" condition in the traffic signals timing in

order to provide sufficient time for the intersection to clear. ' This will help alleviate the frequent disregard of the traffic signal at this location. - Relocate the stop bar for eastbound Frankfort Avenue and other existing pavement markings. - There are also several problems due to poor design standards for the original curb cuts for the businesses located on the corners of this intersection. Reducing the number of curb cuts or relocating them could improve conditions. *Brownsboro Road and Mellwood Avenue - Installation of two (2) signs to indicate: "Right Turn Lane Must Turn Right", on Mellwood Avenue. - Re-mark the stop bars and crosswalks at this location. *Frankfort Avenue and Pope Street - The fire signal at this location is due for modernization in 1989. The City of Louisville Works Department is currently seeking approval to use State funds for this project. The modernized signal will normally operate with flashing yellow indications for Frankfort Avenue traffic, and with flashing red indications for Pope Street traffic. Upon preemption, the indications would transfer to steady reds in all directions. These changes should create safer conditions. *Ewing Avenue and Brownsboro Road - The Works Department has received approval from the State for the installation of pedestrian signals for this intersection. The signals will provide a safer situation for pedestrians. - Re-mark the stop bars and the new crosswalks.

*Ewing Avenue and Frankfort Avenue - Problems in this area are due to poor design standards for the original curb cuts for the businesses located at this intersection. The curbs on northbound Ewing Avenue have recently been reconstructed. *Brownsboro Road and Jane Street - The sight distance at this location is adequate. No improvements are suggested at this time. b. Ice and Snow Hazard Areas Steep, north-facing streets, intersecting with Brownsboro Road are prone to ice and snow hazards during winter months. A lack of sunlight creates a colder surface than exists on flat areas or those with some sun exposure. The task force recommends that the Works Department add these streets shown on Figure 11-H, to their priority list for snow removal and sanding.

3. Traffic Control

Several minor traffic control measures are endorsed by the I

neighborhood plan guidelines. The Public Works Department is I , responsible for implementing the proposals in this section of the transportation plan. Most involve relatively minor expenditure, however, two would require substantial funding. a. Truck Routes Signage should be installed that identifies the following streets as truck routes: Mellwood Avenue, Brownsboro Road, Frankfort Avenue, Payne Street and Ewing Avenue between Payne Street and Brownsboro Road. Signs prohibiting through truck, traffic should be posted on William, Pope and State Streets, Haldeman Avenue and elsewhere in the neighborhood where problems may arise in the future. (The Louisville/Jefferson County Truck Route Study does not support the posting of truck routes, only streets where trucks are prohibited. Refer to Appendix IV, KIPDA letter). In combination with the signage program, an outreach program 1 between the Clifton Community Council and the businesses generating the inappropriate truck traffic should be initiated to explain the concerns that residents have with the trucks on residential streets and truckers could be advised to use more appropriate routes. Copies of the Louisville/Jefferson County Truck Route Study preferred alternative routes map can also be distributed at this time. Continued violations should be cited under the existing ordinances. It should be noted that the restrictions only apply to through traffic. Trucks that have no alternative for access to a commercial, industrial or institutional use activity, residential moving vans and delivery trucks are not included. b. One Way Streets An alley adjacent to the CSX railroad on the north side between Pope Street and Stoll Avenue is suggested for one-way east designation. Sight distance at the railroad overpass on Pope Street is inadequate; westbound traffic on this alley cannot safely enter the intersection. North Jane Street between Sycamore Avenue and the entrance to the apartment complex and Oxford Center behind Kroger is recommended for one-way north designation. The street's narrow width, irregular surface and steepness make it difficult to negotiate. c. Street Widenings Two streets are recommended for widening by the Clifton neighborhood plan. New Main Street between Frankfort Avenue and South Bellaire Avenue is very narrow and problems are caused by parking on unpaved front portions of lots and on both sides of the street. Some modification has already occurred near Frankfort Avenue on the northeast side of the street where parking perpendicular to New Main Street has been constructed on the CSX railroad right-of-way. The second street recommended for widening is Bickels Lane between Saunders Avenue and Ewing Avenue. This street serves as access to the Crescent Springs Condominiums. The pavement width is inadequate (12 feet in the area west of the unbuilt right-of-way of South Keats Avenue and 24 feet east of there). The sections with 12 foot widths should be widened. d. Parking Limitations On-street parking should be limited at the intersection of Bickels Lane and Saunders Avenue on both streets to allow turns. New developments in the Clifton area should include provision of adequate parking. Reuse of existing structures and expansions when a change in use will generate demand for over three parking spaces should also provide an adequate number of spaces. A copy of Article 10 of the Zoning District Regula- tions is included in Appendix 11. Responsibility for determining parking adequacy rests with the Planning Commission in situations involving zoning changes. The City of Louisville Construction Plan Review and Permits section of the Inspec- tions, Permits and Licenses Department is responsible for ensuring that expansions and new uses of existing structures have adequate parking. e. Alley Cut-Through I An alley running parallel to Frankfort Avenue between Ewing Avenue and Peterson Avenue is being utilized as a cut-through to bypass the stop sign and light at the two streets intersections with Frankfort Avenue. This site is located in Crescent Hill but the problem is in part generated by Clifton traffic. The Clifton neighborhood will support the Crescent Hill neighborhood's suggestions for ending this problem. 4. Maintaining Stone Curbs, Brick Streets and Alleys Public utilities and the City of Louisville Works Department should make every effort to retain and restore stone curbs and brick streets and alleys to their original condition after any work that disturbs them. 5. Redesign of Curb Cuts The presence of property line to property line curb cuts detracts from the safety of Frankfort Avenue. Unlimited access has occurred because repavings without curb reconstructions eliminated many of the curbs or rendered them useless. The design plan for the Frankfort Avenue commercial area should address reinstalling operable curbs and limiting site access to appropriate locations as determined through Public Works review. Future repaving operations should allow for the loss of curbs and correct unsafe access situations. Milling the roadway before repairing could minimize curb loss.

6. Alley Maintenance City ordinance 12, series 1980, requires owners of property to be responsible for controlling litter to the middle of the streets and alleys that abut their property. Other ordinances prohibit placing trash out for pick-up in bags because animals may scatter it. Clifton Community Council should publicize these ordinances through their neighborhood newsletter. Educational efforts could be followed by organizing neighborhood work days, when volunteers focus on cleaning up the alleys and trimming trees, or by initiation of a concentrated clean-up effort as suggested under Land Use Implementation part (b): Collective Actions by Neighborhood Residents. Persistent, localized litter problems may require enforcement action. The environmental inspection division of the city's Housing Depart- ment will inspect for litter problems and issue citations to violators. If the problem is not corrected, the city will clean the site and place a lien on the property. This is a no cost implementation measure that can be implemented in the short range. E. PRIORITIES This section of the transportation plan for Clifton neighborhood establishes priorities assigned for each of the transportation guidelines. Four classifications are used: highest priority, high, medium or low priority. The priorities given each recommendation are based on the importance to the the neighborhood that the Task Force assigns each element balanced against the availability of funds, programs and costs involved. Some projects receive higher ratings because the funds are currently available or can be more easily implemented. As tasks are accomplished on this list, new projects will move up to higher priorities and other projects will be added. Peri- odic re-evaluation is recommended in light of available funds programs, new problems and completion of old projects. The Clifton Community Council can schedule this as an annual budget review process that can be undertaken prior to the City of Louisville budget's development to allow projects to be included in the City's budget. The following table presents the guideline recommendations of the plan and priorities assigned by the Task Force in March and April of 1989. The guidelines rather than the implementation measures were given priorities. Implementation measures will change as new programs, agencies, changing conditions and new techniques to address problems become available. The guideline recommendations should change only gradually, as changes occur in the character of the neighborhood.

Transportation Guideline Implementation Measure

(Highest Priority) 4. Work with the Kentucky School for the Blind to monitor the pedestrian improvements they need and to ensure adequate maintenance of existing facilities. 5. Add steep streets in the area to the City's priority list for snow removal and sanding. (Care should be taken when brick streets are involved) 2. Public and private investment in sidewalk maintenance and repair is encouraged. Informing residents about legal requirements for maintenance is also encouraged. Transportation Guideline Implementation Measure

(Highest Priority) (continued) 1. Construct the pedestrian access facilities shown on Figure 11-H Incorporate handicapped facilities and those serving the unique needs of the blind and visually impaired in any construction project. (High Priority) 12. Require utilities to restore streets to original condition (including brick streets) after work in the area. 6. Improve hazardous intersections. (See Figure 11-1.)

8. Work with businesses to reduce truck traffic in inappropriate areas and restrict trucks to main thoroughfares. 11. Require the provision of adequate parking as a part of new development. (Medium Priority) 3. Commercial areas are encouraged to comply with regulations concerning handicapped access in any repairs or reconstruction of sidewalks. (Low Priority) 9. Seek cooperation of the Crescent Hill neighborhood in solving the problems of cars cutting through an alley south and parallel to Frankfort Avenue between Ewing Avenue and Peterson Avenue. 7. Add stop signs or traffic barriers, create one-way street couples, or lower speed limits or widen streets where traffic safety hazards exist. 10. Limit on-street parking to allow safer traffic flows on narrow streets where alternative parking exists. TRANSPORTATION FIGURES ~unctionalStreet Classification

LEGEND

~IUI~Interstate Highway -Major Arterials I-I Minor Arterials

II~I~IIIII~Collectors

Lane Utilization (ie. four lane. two of ihich are used for parking)

..~..,,.... 'treets Alleys on Original Plat but Not Actually Built

Sources: The Comprehensive Plan, Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission, 1986; Field Survey, Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission, July, 1988.

Fig. Il-A

-- ~ ~ A CLIFTON Functional Street SCALE I'n = 500' NEIGHBORHOOD LOUllllLll AND ,,,,,mao* C0""TI ,LL*XIXO C0""11110* Cla'ssification @ .. ..,..,...... ,...... ,....,... c..,... 1-30

Adjusted Daily Traffic Counts

LEGEND

8666 Average Daily Traffic rii%T Year Of Survey

Location of Traffic Counts

Source: KlPDA

Fig. Il-B A CLIFTON NEIGHBORHOOD Adjusted Daily Traffic Counts SCALE 1" = 500' @LOYISYILLI AX. J1P1..10N COUNTY PLLX*,"" CO""I.IID" .,,.,..,,. . ..,....,.. .c......

Bike Routes and TARC Routes

LEGEND

1111111111 Bike Routes - TARC Routes TARC Routes @ Market Street * @ Muhammad Ali boulevard * @ Oak Street * @ ~iddletown(Express on Selected Trips) @ Breckenridge Express @ River Road @ Plainview Express

jC Wheelchair Lift on Selected Trips TRAC Bus Shelter

Streets and Alleys on Original Plat but Not Actually Built

burce: TARC, Bus Map of Greater Louisville, revised, 1984; A bike route map of the Louisville area prepared by KIPDA, 1980.

Fig. Il-C

Traffic Control Devices

LECEN D * Traffic Signals Stop Signs

Railroad Crossing Gates

X Railroad Crossing Signs

ZZZZ Streets and Alleys on Original Plat but Not Actually Built

Source: Louisville and Jefferson County P-lanning Commission, July, 1988.

Fig. Il-D A CLIFTON Traffic Control NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE I" = 500' LOUllVlLL. **D 11.v1.10* COYII. .LA""l*O C0""1.,,0* @ pa, ....,...... ,., ...... , Devices 140

Pedestrian Facilities

LEGEND ...... Sidewalks Crosswalks

0 WalkIWait Signals

A Wheelchair Ramps

*- Possible Tripping Hazards (Approximate Location)

@ Special Facilities for the Blind - Streets and Alleys on Original Plat but Not Actually Built

Source: Louisville and Jefferson County 'Planning Commission, July, 1988

Fig. Il-E A CLIFTON NEIGHBORHOOD Pedestrian Facilities s~AL~1°1=5~~1 L0UII"III. AND 1 ...... 0" COU*.. IIAX*I*C eOY"I1.1~" @ ..,.,..,...,...... ,, ,,...,... ' .,,.., 144 B CLIFTON NEIGHBORHOOD Pedestrian Facilities SCALE I~=~oo~ LDYlllSllll LMD JIPPIIIOI COYNIT @lllNRINC E01111110" ,. ,...... ,...... ,....,... c ..,... @

~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~~ ~ ~~-~-~~~~

Roadway Pavement Widths

LEGEND

(30 Feet) Pavement .Width

%/////5 Width Less Than 30 Feet

****** Width of 30 to 35 Feet

SOURCE: Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission, 1989.

Fig. Il-F

Roadway Conditions

LEGEND

Failing -. Poor mllrl Fair

--= Good

Very Good

1111111111 Excellent

Source: City of Louisville Public Works Department 1989.

Fig. Il-G A CLIFTON NEIGHBORHOOD Roadway Conditions SCALE 1" = 500' LDYllVlLLl AND ,..1.110* COV*.. IL***1"0 EO..III,O. @..,.,..,.. ' ,..,...... ,., , ...,... o.. ..., 152

Recommended Transportation Improvements

LEGEND

11111111111111111 New Sidewalk ~~B~IIIIEIII~I~II Highest Priority I~I~IIIIHIIII~I~I High Priority

ll~11111M1111111 Medium Priority

-1 = m r m r Replace Sidewalk @ One Way Street, High Priority TRK. Truck Route * Add to Snow Priority List

Q . Parking Ban

@ Special Facilities for the Blind

Fig. Il-H

High Accident Locations

LEGEND

Total Number of Accidents Occurring At @ That Location In 1987 and 1988.

Source: Louisville Police Department

Fig. 11-1 CLIFTON NEIGHBORHOOD High Accident Locations NO^ TO Scale L(I",I"III. A,., 11.1..0.

Table A: Historic Population Data: 1950-1980 Table B: 1970 and 1980 Detailed Census Data on Population and Housing (and 1980 Census Tract/Block Map) Table C: Existing and Projected Personal Consumption Expenditures 1980-2010 Table D: Personal Consumption Expenditures and Estimates for Clifton and Surrounding Areas 1980-2010 Table E: Neighborhood Sales Estimate for Clifton (1989) I TABLE A: HISTORIC POPULATION DATA 1950-1 980 (page 1 of 2)

Source: U.S. Census TABLE A: HISTORIC POPULATION DATA 1950-1 980 (page 2 of 2)

Source: U.S. Census 1-2 TABLE B: 1970 and 1980 DETAILED CENSUS DATA ON POPULATION AND HOUSING (page 1 of 4)

Source: U.S. Census

TABLE B: 1970 and 1980 DETAILED CENSUS DATA ON POPULATION AND HOUSING (page 3 of 4)

Source: U.S. Census 1-5

TABLE C: EXISTING AND PROJECTED PERSONAL CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURE 1980-2010 (Census Tract Level) 11.9 Ib'C56E 1'6ZL89 C'OL819 6'8G999 lG'68859 9.82 6'CEbEI 19'LF509 I'SZSLS I2'6ZICS k.86~~ RETAIL USE FLOOR AREA Hardvan 5251 $46 Dry CoDda Grocery Super-ket Meata and Poultry Dalry Products Bakery Womens Clothing Shoe Store Rsdio and TV Rentsurant Fast Fmd Reetsurant Bern and Pubs Drug Store Llquor Store Antiques Second Hand Store Bookstore Florlat Noveltiem Frame and Hobby Shop APPENDIX II REGULATIONS DEFINITIONS PROGRAMS APPENDIX 11: CONTENTS

Enterprise Zone Benefits/Eligible Areas

Definitions of Structural Conditions

Off-Street Parking Regulations

Commercial Sidewalk Revolving Loan Program

Forgiveable Loan Program (Residential)

Housing Rehab Incentive Program

Neighborhood Plan Ordinance Resolution 254 Series 1988

Louisville Gas and Electric Tree Planting Guide

Development Incentives - Rehabilitation Tax Incentives - Property Tax Assessment Moratorium Isor-LsslZoSl :auWd -=ma salws 8s wlj adwxa am wor aql u!ql!m uoll 6lcc-z0z0b Av>n~uan'*II!ASI-I '~~JISi-w*w -m~aruo>mau ro 'uo!a.~llIq.qar ,6u!~apnwa 304 SI~IJ~I~Ubulpl!ng )ray 515 'auwdqanaa J!ulouo>3 Jq a3~40Alum3 wS1a~)arlalllAsl~ .xn sales areas 8s vorj )dusrs om auoz aql u!qala uwd~ndssau!mq aqa 1x8~~as~ld's~~auaq -2 as!~aiaau3 YO UOI~WJ~U! arow ~oj 104 pasn ssaulsnq pal(ll.nb .Aq sal>(qar maow 40 sasmq>md 'x.8 saln a~eas1s yprj adwxa ma. auoz aqa UI asn 10) ssau~snq paul~anb. Aq Lu!qnu pu. awwdlnba pwn puR nu40 SaS*q>And :auau(wrd aqa 40 auas am 'sabaum~p. I.IYU~IU ~da1-6uqpur aaqpwu! 40 sqwnu I =Alan IIIN sauwoq auoz astrd~aauj~IIIASIIKI ~q Ajllmnb )eqa s~.npl~lpul pus saluduwj

-ruoz as!ad>a1u3 aql u! ra!a! -unaloddo ssau!mq umo ~1aqaaaea~:, s~uaplsa~dlaq oa paz!ue6ro aq .wlao(lddr aq8 40 aar~mql WOJI SIIIUM I1 UI~IINSSaSS. PXU 1.U I*IOl aq8 40 802 hq IUaUIlSaAU! ue> [S13v3N) ,,~~o!lelodlojUO(Ie!MIIV DSJJ~A~~Y~p001(~0qq6!.~. . t-aldn aSWaJYU! 'JO uo(am(ldd. aqI 40 a3.p aqa mol~sqauow 01 'smmt rtaw ut sauaasa~u!,rluap!sar aaAo)ular (I!.sassru!snq ul aua~uasa~u!meN s UlllllN 802 *q 8wwAolduu In01 aSNJXI! 08 Ser; SW!Snq 6UllSlxa ue l .rat n1.s 8s aqa wy pa~dweraaq u.3 auoz aq~ulqa!r JO :sAmp 06 1q aau.1slssm qlqna uo asq 6uw. mad) JO 'rhup 06 104 paAoldwaun as0q1 6uoms w0.q 'awz aqa 40 s~uapjsa~ I-q 40 UO!I~~~~SUOJrau JO uolara!#!qeqad ro) ste!~alcw6u!p1tng s .ra~!aurwl 1e!x1ru!4 anlama 6~0w. WJ~a3rol idor ~eaoa SI! 40 8sr sd!q 01 seq ssau!snq uau e 'auoz yau!qa!r .->!Alas ~!aqa40 11. Allr!au.arqns 'pur r3 01 sassau!snq 104 )uawaJ!nbaJ ~0!1e>y!a~a3 I! rlql 'auoz aqa ut I . :w!lsml auol WI aroda~do *JON =>do/ *,or rat 40 80s a~eq 'A!I oqm SIU~P!ESJ MJ) a3JOj mqel ~!aqameJp sas"u!mq auoz I. H . :au01 aql u!qa!u pan01 h(1e3!shqd aq H :at402 aqa :sauaa~!nbm~>U!-S aqa ere alaH 'uo!$m>!)!aAa> doj lsnw auoz as!,d u! a~!loq. s~uap!sa~03 sa~auaqanb!un sapl~u~dosle suoz as1~ddaau3aql hj11.nb -4aau3 aqa u! scautmq .'uA!auawl iel>u.uu IWJOI pue saws aA!a>oa a1 AapJo UI

'alqe~!e*e ale ole imdJan!u aql ae palem1 a>ueAeal> rluo%rn> qa!m auoz 'uo!aeml srwlsng do4 antd I~~PIu. auoz as!~d~aaujallIAslno3 P~Ia*.w apedl u6!sroj r pue IJO~ (euolleuds1u! ue 01 rra>>e wodj ra!jauea auoz apedl ub!aroj SII us!- aroddantu pue ~II~AS!~40 Atls~.n!un aq~'urn01 'daplo JO SJNA 02 -uroP 'JalwJ l.J!pam 'add!@ aqa 01 Al!wlro~dasolj 'uo!surdra pup 6ul1)s ale 8eql At!> aqa u!qatm samlmlls 40 SISOJ uo~le&!l!qeqa~104 pue awz sr!ld~alu3aqa 40 uo!llod all!ns!nol 40 A#!> aql u! sauawqslt aau saa!~U! Salnaanlar a~qel!m~sPu. 'pu.1 (U.3.A 'sesseu!snq 6u!(s!xa 6uodas jo -qeasa bu!lnr>ejnurw rau 104 suo!aduuxs xel iruo!l!ppe ale adaql xlw pm6 v 'awz alllua yasaAJss uoll.a~odsu.~l allqnd 'swaashs AdaA!Iap pue .say i!w~adBu!p~!nq pampa> wo~jsayauaq a~la=a>auoz as!~d~a~ua 6u!dd!qs pus 'alodlte aq8 'cAmmq6!q aa.(saa(ul 'seu!l peodl!e~ .uo!1el~odrue~a J~A!J oa alq!SSa3X AIIPNI st A~!AIIJ. qwou)a ado, r,woz as!ad~aau3 aql aqa jo UOIIJ~~ a~~!~s!no-i40 AI!~ aqa UNI!U 6u!an01 sassau!sng 'spu >g!=ds lnoA 01 paJol!el rwe~lio~d6u)u!ela qo] 40 IU~U~~OI~A~PaI(1 U! 1S!SSs Ill* IUW~I~OI.A.O 3!YIOV033 104 a3U40 'suo!~e>!tddr ueol rsau!mq 6u!6eqxd u! aJuear!sss (e>luqml ap!~o~dpu. 'sue~hddueol 6u!pdeb~auoz as!adJalu3 all!.ns!nol WI u! 6u!arml sassau!rnq 01 e>uelr!sre ate!paww! a~!6 ' Il!m luawdola~a~>!warn33 roj s>!))o haunoj uor~a4jarla1l!~s!nol 'paeu6!sap s! iruor aq~SP tiuol re ssssol 6u!ae~adoaau alels sa! plemdoj AJJP~Aeu ssau!snq Jnoh 'sauap!sar eaJe 10) sa!~!unI~Odd~ '.el awo>u! alras worj adusra aJe auoz aq1 u!ua!m h~dsdodduo qo! paseanu! pus Aa!~!13e ssau!snq wuedra pue rw s6edno~uaq>!q~ ja!Iaa sueon a6.61~~lo sassaulsnq pay!lenb oa sucol uo awon~!Isaraaul A~oae(n6irrpue raAlaua=u! xe~~e!mds sap!~oad suoz as!>das&u3 all!+.r!noi aql 'XeI aY103U! .(CIS Sq1 UO,j id~a~. ale auor a111 u!qa!r Alladoad pa~!~~nbjo .IPS aqa wodj rule2

Definitions of Structural Classificatims Residential Structures a. SCUM) Structure is sound in all re- - in an excellent state of repair. b. SOUND Structure is sound - in need of only limited minor SPRUCNRE repairs, has M defects or only slight defects which PEmR are nodly corrected during the course of r-ar REPAIR mintenace (such as lack of paint, slight hgeto porch or steps; dlcracks in wall or chirmey; broken gutters or downsp3uts; slight wear on floor or door sills). c. SOUM) Stmxture is deteriorating - in need of extensive slmmtm mtmr repairs, mre repairs than mdd be provided mJoR during the course of regular nm.intmance; one or rrore REPAIR defects and/or deficiencies or an intermdiate nature which my or my not be ecnnunically feasible to as a uble (such as shaky or unsafe ~orch steps; holes, open cracks or missing mterial over a smll area of the walls or roof; rotting window sills or £rams), but not containing an apparent nrrmber of defects and/or deficiencies to justify clearance on just the condition of the structure. A general mjor rehabilitation job .is requmd for these uts. d. D~OFW'5l Structure is deteriorated - it contains a &ination SPRUCRTRE of defects and/or deficiencies in structural and non- mJoR structural el-ts of total significance and to an REPAIR extent possibly requiring clmce. 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 ques- tionable for rehabilitation because of the cost factor. e. DIIAPmATED Structure is dilapidated - has at least tm major BEYW strvctural defects (such as holes, open cracks or miss- REPAIR ing mterials over a large area of walls, roof or other parts of the structure; sagging floor, walls or mf; hgeby storm or fire) to the degree requiring clear- are. Mn-Residential Structures a. STAM3ARD Structure is apparently sound in all respects; sLac- ture is in need of only Limited minor repairs which are norrally mde during the course of re@= maintenance, such as painting, clean-up of yard and/or structure, repair of screens, or repair of gutters and dampouts. b. DEPRECIATING Structure is deteriorating and in need of extensive minor repairs - mre repairs than could be proviM during the course of regular rraintenance, such as shk] or unsafe prch steps, repair or siding, minor mf or chinmey repair, or repair or rmval of accessory buildings - but not containing a sufficient n& of defects and/or deficiencies to justify clearance solel:. because of the structure's condition. c. SUBSTANDARD Structure is dilapidated and contains a dination oi structural defects and/or deficiencies requuing mjor - repairs (such as sagging flmrs, walls, or rwf , op cracks or missing materials over a large area, mjor problems with roof or porch) to a degree requiring clearance. Section 10.1 Off-Street Parking Regulations

2. The number of parking spaces which may be credited against the require- I mnts for the structures or uses involved shall not exceed the number of spaces reasonably anticipated to be available during any hours of operation as determined by the Planning Comnission based upon the I recormendation of the applicable agency responsible for traffic engi- I neering. I 3. The joint parking area shall be within 500 feet of all the uses being served by such facility, measured by the walking distance from the nearest point of the property on which the parking facility is located, to the nearest point of the property on which the use is located and which the parking is intended to serve.

4. Off-street parking areas required for residential use shall not be included in any joint parking arrangement.

5. All parties shall execute a proper1 drawn legal instrument providing for the long-term (minimum 30 years1 joint use for the joint use of the off-street parking areas. This instrument shall be drawn to the satisfaction of an attorney and executed by all parties concerned assuring the continued availability of the number of spaces designated for joint use and which shall be recorded in the County Clerk's Office.

Editor's note: Parking requirements for W-1 Waterfront District and W-3 Waterfront District are in regulations for each district.

Article 10 - 2 IT-i,

~ ~.-~ ~~~ ~ Section 10.1 Off-Street Parking Regulations

\ D. Minimum Parking Space Requirements:

Space Space Space ~odules Width Depth Depth Wall Interlock Parking Para1 lel to t o Aisle* to to Angle toAlsle Wall Interlock Width Wall Interlock

45O 8.5-ft space 12.0 17.5 15.3 13 48 44 9.0-ft space 12.7 17.5 15.3 12 47 43 9.5-ft space 13.4 17.5 15.3 11 46 42 60" 8.5-ft space 9.8 19.0 17.5 18 56 53 9.0-ft space 10.4 , 19.0 17.5 16 54 51 9.5-ft space 11.0 19.0 17.5 15 51 50 7s0 8.5-ft space 8.3 19.5 18.8 25 64 63 9.0-ft space 9.3 19.5 18.8 23 62 61 9.5-ft space 9.8 19.5 18.8 22 61 60 90' 8.5-ft space 8.5 18.5 18.0 26 62 60 9.0-ft space 9.0 18.5 18.0 24 60 60 9.5-ft space 9.5 18.5 18.0 24 60 60 I I 'Measured between ends of space lines. Rounded to nearest foot.

E/&Y~'wall x I' I

X = 5p.c. not accarsibla in certain layouts

Article 10 - 3 ,'# 112~ - Section 10.1 Off-Street Parking Regulations

E. Access To and From Parking Areas: 1

1. Except for single-family detached dwelling and duplexes. each required off-street parking space shall open directly upon a private aisle or private driveway of such width and design as to provide safe and effic- ient means of vehicular access between such parking space and public streets.

2. All non-residential off-street parking facilities shall be designed with appropriate means of vehicular access to a street or alley in such a manner as to minimize interference with traffic movement and shall be so designed and located that vehicles shall not back from or into a public street or alley.

F. Use of Required Parking Areas and Spaces:

1. The parking areas and 'spaces required by these regulations shall not be used for the display, advertisement, sale, repair, dismantling or wrecking of any vehicles, equipment or materials.

2. Buildings or structures shall be permitted for shelters for guards, attendants or watchmen; however, any such structure shall not occupy required off-street parking spaces.

3. Loading and unloading spaces shall not constitute required off-street parking space; nor shall any off-street parking area be used for off- street loading purposes.

4. No loading area may be located in the required yards.

G. Surface of Parking Areas/Maintenance:

1. All off-street parking areas, except for those serving detached single family uses and agricultural uses, shall be of a hard and durable surface which limits or precludes particulate air pollution and which shall be maintained in good condition and free of weeds, dirt, trash and debris. Paving materials other than asphalt, brick, concrete or concrete paving may be permitted upon approval by the Director of Works.

2. All parking facilities must meet the standards of the appropriate public works department or agency.

H. When units of measurement used in determining the number of required parking spaces would result in the requirement of a fractional space, any fraction less than one-half (4) shall be disregarded, and fractions of one-half (4) or more shall require one (1) parking space. I. Parking in Residential Districts

1. In the R-R. R-E, R-1, R-2. R-3 and R-4 Districts not more than five (5) passenger vehicles shall be parked on each lot in compliance with sub- paragraph A. 1. a. above. Pick-up trucks, vans and other vehicles not exceeding 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW) shall be considered as a passenger vehicle. In addition, one recreation vehicle (motor home

Article 10 - 4 IF6 Section 10.1 Off-Street Parking Regulations

camper or travel trailer) and one boat/boat trailer may be parked or stored on each lot in compliance with sub-paragraph A. 1. a. above.

2. In the R-5 District not more than four (4) passenger vehicles shall be parked on each. lot in compliance with sub-paragraph A. 1. a. above. Pick-up trucks, vans, recreation vehicles (motor home, camper or travel trai lerj, boat/boat trailers and other vehicles not exceeding 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW) shall be considered as a passenger vehicle.

3. In the R-5A and R-6 Districts outdoor parking of no more than three vehicles shall be permitted on site for each apartment unit.

4. In all other districts, except R-5A and R-6 as noted above, in which multi-family uses are permitted, outdoor parking of no more than two vehicles shall be permitted on a parcel or property for each apartment unit. 5. On property or parcels containing more than six apartment units recrea- - tional vehicles (motor home, camper or travel trailer and boat/trailer) shall be parked or stored in an area set aside and screened for the parking or storage of tenant-owned recreational vehicles and boat/boat trailers or other equipment.

6. Outdoor storage of inoperative vehicles or vehicles being scrapped for salvage is prohibited in residential zones. Parking is limited to that attendant to residential uses on site; parking for off-site uses is prohibited.

J. Any lighting used to illuminate off-street parking areas shall be directed away from any adjoining residential use or uses and any public or private right-of-way.

K. Handicapped parking as required by local ordinances shall be provided.

L. Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements by Use:-

RESIDENTIAL USES DWELLINGS, ONE FAMILY - DETACHED, ATTACHED OR SEMI-DETACHED: One space for each dwelling unit on the premises.

DWELLINGS, MULTIPLE FAMILY: One and one half (1.5) space for each dwelling unit.

DWELLINGS, SENIOR CITIZEN OR RETIREMENT FACILITIES: .75 space for each dwelling unit.

HOTELS, ROOMING, BOARDING AND LODGING HOUSES: One space for each three sleeping rooms or three individual suites of rooms.

MOTELS: One space for each sleeping room or individual suite of rooms on the premises.

Article 10 - 5 IT-; Section 10'.1 Off-Street Parking Regulations

I FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES: Two spaces for each three sleeping rooms, or one space for each 35 square feet of floor area used for meeting rooms, whichever results in the greatest number of spaces. PRIVATE CLUBS, AND LODGES: One space for each five members.

OFFICE USES GENERAL/PROFESSIONAL OFFICE: 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.

MEDICAL OFFICE/CLINIC OR DENTAL OFFICE: One space for each 200 square feet of floor area, with a minimum of three spaces.

BANKS AND RELATED FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND POST OFFICES: Ten (10) spaces plus one additional space for each 300 square feet of floor area in excess of 1,000 square feet.

INDUSTRIAL USES

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.

RETAIL USES RETAIL STORES: One space for each 200 square feet of floor area in the building, with a minimum of three spaces. PERSONAL SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS, WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTING ESTABLISHMENTS: ' One space for each 200 square feet of floor area in the building, with a minimum of three spaces. AUTO SERVICE, REPAIR ESTABLISHMENTS: Two spaces for each bay plus one space for each employee.

CAR-WASH ESTABL ISHHENTS: Four spaces for each stall (may be located in the 'stacking' area). 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.

COmERCIAL/RECREATION USES

RESTAURANTS, DANCE HALLS, NIGHT CLUBS. SIMILAR ESTABLISHMENTS, USED FOR RECREATION OR AMUSEMENT OR FOR SERVING OF MEALS OR DRINKS: One space for each 100 square feet of floor area.

Article 10 - 6

- ~ 1s-P Section 10.1 Off-Street Parking Regulations

SKATING RINKS: One space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area.

BOWLING ALLEYS, TENNIS CENTERS: Four parking spaces for each alley or court. SWIMMING POOLS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC: One space for each 100 square feet of water surface area; plus one space for each 30 square feet of site area used for spectator seating. THEATERS/CINEMAS: One space for every five seats.

INSTITUTIONAL USES AUDITORIUMS, CHURCHES, TEMPLES, AND OTHER PLACES OF PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ASSEMBLY: Where permanent seats are installed, one parking space for each two and one-half seats (2t) based on design capacity; where no permanent seats are provided, one parking space for each 40 square feet used for seating. GYMNASIUMS, ARENAS AND STADIUMS: One parking space for each five permanent or portable seats. TRADE, BUSINESS AND OTHER PROPRIETARY SCHOOLS: One space for every three classroom seats plus one space for every three employees. HIGHER 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 auditorium requirements, whichever results in the greater number of spaces.

DAY, CARE CENTERS. DAY NURSERIES, KINDERGARTENS AND NURSERY SCHOOLS : One parking space shall be provided for each member of the day care center staff. An on-site area shall be provided where passengers may safely exit auto~nobilesand enter the building and vice versa. FUNERAL HOMES: Fifteen spaces plus five spaces for each room in excess of three which can be used as a parlor or chapel. i I FIRE STATIONS: With full time fire fighters, one space per person on duty on a normal shift. With voluntary fire fighters, five spaces for each I piece of apparatus. HOSPITALS: Two spaces for each five beds plus one parking space for every two employees per peak shift. ASYLUMS, INSTITUTIONS, AND HOME FOR AGED, CONVALESCENTS, ORPHANS, OR INDIGENTS: One space for each six beds.

LIBRARIES, MUSEUMS, AN0 ART GALLERIES: Ten spaces, plus one additional space for each 300 square feet of floor area in excess of 1,000 square feet.

Article 10 - 7 - . 11-9 Section 10:l Off-Street Parking Regulations

USES NOT SPECIFIED

For any use not specified above, the requirements for off-street parking ratios shall be determined by the Planning Comnission.

M. For each parcel in any residential zone, the parking of not more than one comnercial vehicle (said vehicle to be counted as two passenger vehicles per sub-paragraph A. 2. a. above) shall be permitted for each dwelling unit on the premises, provided said vehicle does not exceed a 1icense gross vehicle weight (GVW) of 10,000 pounds and is not used for hauling hazardous materials.

N. WAIVER PROVISIONS:

*l. Uses allowed in the C-N District: a. A use permitted in the C-N zone with less than 2.500 square feet of floor area can reduce parking space requirements by twenty percent up to three (3) spaces provided the use is not adjacent to another use owned or controlled by the same person.

b. Comnercial uses permitted in the C-N District which occupy no more than 2,500 square feet of floor area and are located in corner comnercial structures will have no parking spaces required. Expansion of these structures after the effective date of these regulations will void waiver privileges. Corner comnercial structures, as used in this section, shall mean structures that were constructed prior to 1946 and were built to house a comnercial establishment and are situated at an intersection.

2. Parking Waiver

a. In extraordinary cases in which the Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements would create hardship in the use of a particular site, : the Planning Comnission may consider granting a waiver of the number of parking spaces required for that site. The waiver shall be the smallest possible reduction in parking spaces that would accmdate the proposed use, in no case to exceed 33% of the total number of required spaces. To qualify for a waiver, the applicant mist demonstrate a good faith effort to provide as many parking spaces as possible on the site, on other property under the same ownership (paragraph A. 1 of this article), or through shared or joint use of parking lots (paragraph C of this article). The Plan- ning Conmission shall hold a public hearing to consider any request for waiver of parking requirements. The applicant for the waiver shall supply the names and addresses of all persons designated by the property valuation administrator as owners of property within 200 feet of the subject property. The Planning Conmission shall send notice of the public hearing to said persons by first class mail not less than 7 nor more than 30 days prior to the hearing. In granting the waiver the Planning Comnission must find that the waiver and the use which the parking is to serve are in compliance

*Not in effect in the City of St. Matthews. Article 10 - 8 Section 10.1 Off-Street Parking Regulations

with the Comprehensive Plan. Parking demand calculation is impre- cise at its best. The Planning Comnission shall consider adverse impacts that might be created by parking demand in excess of that projected. In granting a waiver, the Comnission shall also consider the impact that displaced parking demand will have on the customary parking pattern of the surrounding area. As the basis for granting a parking waiver, the applicant must demonstrate and the Connission must find two or more of the following: i. that the parking demand of the proposed use and prior uses on site are similar and that prior uses on-site did not make use of on-site parking and did not create nuisances for adjacent properties, ii. that there is a significant surplus of off-street or on-street parking in the area that can accommodate the generated parking demand, iii. that the pea'k parking demand period for the proposed use does not match the peak parking demand period for surrounding uses, that there is no conflicting demand for limited spaces, iv. that adjacent properties will not be adversely affected, v. that there are other specific mitigating circumstances. The Planning Comnission must also find that the party applying for the waiver has attempted to provide adequate parking either on- site, on other property under the same ownership, or by shared or joint use of parking areas as provided for in these regulations.

The off-street parking provided and the use it serves shall be shown on a district development plan which, except as otherwise specified herein, shall be processed, implemented and enforced as provided in Article 8 (Plan Certaln) of these regulations. The applicant shall pay the fee specified for such a request by Article 16, Fee Schedule (paragraphs 1 through 3) unless the request is processed with a request for rezoning relating to the same property. Any reduction of the required number of parking spaces granted by the Planning Comnission shall be limited to the specific use of the property and the amount of parking shown on the district develop- Rcnt plan. Any expansion of the use beyond what is indicated on the development plan shall provide parking as required by this article. Any change in use of property that had been granted a parking waiver shall be reviewed by the Planning Comnission. If the Comission determines that the change in use may have a substantial impact on the need for off-street parking, the Comnission will hold a public hearing to determine if the reduction of parking spaces granted to the previous use shall apply to the new use.

Article 10 - 9 11-il Section 10.2 Off-Street Loading Regulations I

A. All buildings and uses which require the receipt or distribution of materials or merchandise by truck or similar vehicles shall provide off-street loading space. New bu~ldings,or buildings structurally altered to the extend of increasing floor area to an amount equal to the minimum floor area required to provide loading space, shall provide the number of spaces in accordance with its class of use listed in sub-sections (1) and (2). Only that portion erected or expanded after the effective date of this Regulation shall be required to meet the provisions of this section.

1 Conercial, industrial, and public utility uses which have gross floor area of 5,000 square feet or more shall provide truck loading or unloading berths in accordance with the following table:

Square feet of floor area Number of berths required

Less than 5,000 5,000 - 30,000 30.001 - 100.000 3 170,001 - 250;000 4 250,001 - 330.000 5 330,001 - and over 5 plus 1 for each additional 90,000 square feet or portion thereof.

2. Restaurants, office buildings, hotels, hospitals and institutions, schools and colleges, public buildings, recreational or entertainment facilities, and any similar use which has a gross floor area of 30,000 square feet or more shall provide off-street truck loading or unloading berths in accordance with the following table:

Square feet of floor area Number of berths required

Less. than 30,000 30,000 - 100,000 100,001- - 200,000 200.001 - 350,000 3 350,001 - 500,000 4 500,001 - and over 4 plus 1 for each additional 150,000 square feet or portion thereof.

B. The minimum size of an off-street loading berth shall be 10 feet by 50 feet, with a height clearance of 14 feet, exclusive of driveways and maneuvering space.

Article 10 - 10 T.. 7-,-- 1. j Pur~ose: to provide a revolving loan for repair of defective sidewalks adjacent to commercial establishments outside the Central Business District (CBD). Funding u:$500,000 Elieibility: commercial property outside the CBD and in an area zoned for commercial or office use or having a non-conforming use consistent with commercial or office use.

Process:

Sidewalks must be examined by am inspector from the Public Works Department for the existence of hazardous/tripping conditions. Only those portions of the sidewalk that are citable are to be replaced, under the Commercial Loan Program. :

Any external problems, i.e., tree roots, tree removals, etc., will be addressed prior to installation and the computed costs included in the loan.

A Notice is sent citing the property owners and advising them of the existence of the Commercial Loan Program.

I The property owner advises the Public Works Department within 10 days as to whether or not participation in the loan program is desired.

If property owners choose not to participate in the Commercial Loan Program, they assume responsibility outlined under Ordinance 1194.27 and will be advised to make the necessary repairs at their own expense.

If property owners choose to participate, they will enter into a written agreement with the City whereby:

The owners will submit two (2) estimates to the Department of Public Works for the' cost of repairing the citable portions of the sidewalk. Estimates will be compared in-house and a recommendation made. Gwners will then be advised to proceed with repairs and to submit an invoice for completed work to the Public Works Department, Engineering Division, Room 217, City Hall.

Owners will be asked to sign a notarized loan agreement for the amount of the repairs plus interest calculated as average principal amount due and owing multiplied by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index rate between January 1 and December 31 of that year, to be paid over a period of three (3) years in two (2) equal payments, the third payment being for the balance due.

Contact Person: Judy Honadel Room 217, City Hall 625-3121 I

ELIGIBLE: L;

/ ": : , . . ,.: Muse be owner/occupied - ~~kd&u.i L. ll!,: * &. ..: IY~~I Must have citeable sidewalk(defective,hazardous) Must sign Forgiveable Loan Promissory Note ~~~i:~:~!~~;! , , ,

i; L:...?,,;,.,>,,,,,t .is F~~!&II~L PROCEDURE :

Will received Invoice annually for 1/5 of the amount- If still ovner-occupied all they do is sign the note and return it and that 1/5th is forgiven

At the end of 5 years - if they are still'there - the entire amount will be forgiven.

If they sell or move for any reason, the remaining amount is due and payable.

Contractor will perform work as HIS schedule permits.

Estimate on their letter is rough - based on normal circumstances and could be a little higher or more likely a little lower. Contractor will address each problem separately (tree root remval, etc.)

If the part of their driveway approach that is a con- tinuation of the sidewalk is bad that portion vill be replaced as well (included in the estimate).

NOT ELIGIBLE:

Rental Property (Unless it is a multi-family dvelling occupied by the owner and located in a residential area)

Comnercial Property - EW should be contacted for info on the Commercial Loan Program (not forgiveable).

PS:

They should be encouraged to come in and fill out note as we can then Notarize it for them at no charge. If they prefer we can mail it - or they can pick it up and take it home to study. If they want to mail it back then the burden of Notarizing is on them (IT MUST BE NOTARIZED). OR - they can bring it back in and sign here where WE can notarize it for them. MELISSA ?-, hlERSHOlG BARBARA GRECG rlNoes. SGLLEY CYRIL GL!GEIER STEVE H ?.lAGRE JERRY KLEIER MICHAEL ill WOODEN TOM DENNI~G BILL WILSON STEVE H MAGqE REV. ARTHUR SMITH REGINALD MEEKS D.ei~aent PAUL C. BATHER

February 1989 Dear Clifton Resident: In 1987 the City of Louisville initiated a Housing Rehab Incentive Program designed to stabilize older, established neighborhoods by helping homeowners help themselves. Only certain neighborhoods, including Clifton, are eligible for this program.

If you own the home you presently live in, and if you- meet certain financial guidelines, you could receive up to $1,000 to help cover the cost of correcting cited Housing Code violations. This reimbursement of repair costs is only for repair of cited exterior violations of the Housing Code, such as broken or missing siding, rusted gutters, leaking roof, falling chimney, etc. I know making repairs to your home can be expensive, and because the condition of your home is so important to the appearance and general welfare of your neighborhood, city government is committed to doing all it can to help. To see if you qualify for this program, just complete the attached questionnaire and mail it to: Rehab Incentive Program c/o Mary Minor, Program Coordinator 617 West Jefferson, 2nd Floor Louisville, KY 40202 All inquiries will be answered by the Program Coordinator, and if you qualify, a Housing Inspector will call you to schedule an appointment so you may complete the required Application Form, and have your home inspected for Code Violations. This is just one of the many ways I want to help you help your neighborhood1

- - Melissa Mershon First Ward Alderman 625-3100

11-15 An Equal Opportunity Employer CITY OF LOUISVILLE REHAB INCENTIVE PROGRAM IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION8 ABOUT THIS PROGRAM INQUIRY FORM YOU MAY CALL MARY MINOR AT W-3847, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 625 , Homeowner Name: Home Address:

Telephone Number: Date :

(1) Do you own your home and do you have legal title?

( ) YES. ( ) NO (2) Is your home a single-family structure (no apartments) or a duplex (no more than 2 separate apartments)?

( 1 YES ( 1 NO (3) Do you plan to live in your present home for at least the next two years?

(4) How many members i'n your household? Answer:

(5) What is the total combined yearly gross income for all family members in your household (including yourself)? Answer: (6) Is your home equipped with a SMOKE DETECTOR?

(7) Are any members of your household under seven years of age? If so, testing for lead paint poisoning may be required.

IF THE TOTAL COMBINED YEARLY INCOME FOR YOU AND YOUR FAMILY WEB NOT EXCEED THE FOLLOWING TABLE FOR FAMILY SIZE, YOU MAY QUALIFY FOR THIS REHAB INCENTIVE PROGRAM: Family Size: 1 Member 2 Members 3 Members 4 Members 5 Members Maximum Allowable Income: $15,850 $18,100 $20,400 $22,650 24,050 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE INCOME FOR LARGER SIZE FAMILIE8 AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. CALL THE PROGRAM COORDINATOR AT 0-3847. 6ar News Release Pr oqra~ ~i~ OFFICE OF THE MAYOR - PHILIP J. LYNCH CITYHALL PRESSSECRETARY

JERRY E. ABRAMSON 387-3061 MAYOR 387-3013

July 30, 1987 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MAYOR EXPLAINS SPECIFICS OF HOUSING REHAB INCENTIVE PROGRAM

Mayor Jerry Abramson today provided detailed information about the City's new $1 million housing rehab incentive program, a program announced by the Mayor during his May 28 Budget Address to the Board of Aldermen. Under the program, a minimum of 1000 qualified homeowners will be reimbursed by the City up to $1,000 for repairs to i their homes that correct housing code violations. Repairs or replacement of leaking gutters, peeling paint and broken steps are examples of the work that would be reimbursed by the City. "The rehab incentive program is designed to stabilize older, established neighborhoods by helping homeowners help themselves," said Mayor Abramson. "Many homes in these neighborhoods are beginning to show some signs of wear and tear and if they are not repaired soon, their condition will deteriorate significantly, threatening the integrity of the neighborhood." The most important eligibility requirement of the program involves the specific neighborhoods where the program is offered. (See attached map.) Two primary factors were involved in the selection of the neighborhoods: areas of the city that have not previously received City housing assistance; and neighborhoods where most of the housing stock is structurally sound but in need of repairs to prevent significant deterioration. "In many respects this is a 'preventative maintenance' program," said Abramson. Other eligibility requirements include: income guidelines; the stipulation that the owner must live in the house being repaired; the house must be a single-family or two-family unit; and the owner must agree to remain living in the home for two years after receiving the City's reimbursement. Over the next two weeks, the City will mail notice of the program to 8,000 homeowners residing in the affected areas. , The home-owners will receive detailed information about the program and how to apply. Homeowners may also call 587-3847 for information about the program. I The application process essentially involves proving ownership and residency of the house to be repaired, meeting the income guidelines, getting the house inspected and then getting the code violations repaired. The City will reimburse the homeowner (or make direct payment to the contractor) after the work is completed. The homeowners are responsible for paying repairs that exceed $1,000.

HOUSING INSPECTION DIVISION POLICY AND PROCEDURE MANUAL REHAB INCENTIVE PROGRAM *

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 1

The City of Louisville's FEHAB INCENTIVE PROGRAM shall provide reimbursement not exceeding $1,000 for correction of Housing Code violations cited at owner-occupied residential properties within certain geographic areas of the City of Louisville. As this program is limited to owner-occupants of 1 to 2-family dwellings only, falling within the Low to Moderate Income Guidelines established by the Federal Government, correction of cited Housing Code violations will benefit the City of Louisville at large by improving the habitability of the local housing stock, and conserving properties which might otherwise fall into further conditions of disrepair.

Section I: Program Eligibility To be eligible for program'benefits, applicant must: (A) Be able to prove ownership and residency within designated program zone of City of Louisville; Census Tracts 001, 003, 007, 012, 028, 036, 037, 038, 039, 040, 041, 055, 063, 064, 067, 068, 069, 070, 071, 074, 080 and 081. (Copy of legal title to property shall be required for proof of ownership; applicant must reside at the property, not to exceed two dwelling units, one of which must be occupied by the applicant.) (B) Be able to prove adjusted gross income not exceeding : FEDERAL LOW/MODERATE INCOME GUIDELINES (1-16-87) $15,850 for individual resident/occupant 18,100 for family of two (2) residents 20,400 for family of three (3) residents 22,650 for family of four (4) residents 24,050 for family of five (5) residents 25,500 for family of six (6) residents 26,900 for family of seven (7) residents (Adjusted gross income of applicant and all occupants must be verified by either Federal Tax statements or salary/wage statements prepared by . applicant's employer.)

c LICENSES PAGE 1 OF 3 HOUSING INSPECTION DIVISION POLICY AND PROCEDURE MANUAL REHAB INCENTIVE PROGRAM- (C) Willing to comply with required Program Directives regarding inspection, citation and rehabilitation of subject property. (D) Continue to reside in the subject property for a minimum two (2) years, upon completion of rehab.

Section 11: Rehab Limitations Reimbursement s be made to qualified applicants only for correction of violations of the City's Housing Code

[Cha~ter150. 24. Series 19811 reuardina exterior- - . -- - - ~~ structural condition of dwelling or acdessory - building (including abatement of lead-based paint hazard according to authorized procedure). Property conditions requiring repairs of a cosmetic nature will not be eligible for-program reimbursement. Reimburse- ment will be made only for those conditions injurious to the affected dwelling and/or accessory structure, not including conditions to adjacent grounds/yard/pavement.

Section 111: General Program Directives All of the following general steps will be coordinated by the Rehab Incentive Program Coordinator and monitored by the Chief Code Enforcement Officer for the Housing Inspection Division, Department of Inspections, Permits and Licenses. For a more detailed explanation of the Rehab Incentive Program, see the "Rehab Incentive Program Operational Procedures."

(A) ~nspectionC Citation of Subject Property Applicant must allow a complete inspection of his/her dwelling exterior by a Code Enforcement Officer of the Housing Inspection Division of the City's Department of Inspections, Permits and Licenses. Applicant will be told at time of the inspection which violation corrections required at the subject property are covered under program limitations (see above, Sec. 11). Applicant will be asked to complete a Rehab Incentive Program ~pplication Form and provide verification of ownership, residency and income at the time of the

~SPCNOS,P S PAGE 2 OF 5 CITY OF LOUISVILLE HOUSING INSPECTION DIVISION POLICY AND PROCEDURE MANUAL REHAB INCENTIVE PROGRAM

inspection; the Code Enforcement Officer will complete I the verification portion of the Rehab Incentive Program Application Form. The owner will receive a Notice of Violation/Acceptance Letter in the mail within one (1) week, describins all of the violations existina at the subject propeky , and explaining the - owner's responsibility to obtain a minimum of two (2) Contractor's Bid Proposals for all required repairs, itemizing all materials to be used as well as all charges and costs for the required repairs; if work is to be performed by owner, the applicant must submit a detailed cost listing of materials needed to complete the required work, on the Owner's Work Proposal. (B) Final Acceptance by Program If at least one (1) Contractor's Bid Proposal is approved, or if the applicant's Owner's Work Proposal is approved, the applicant will receive a Final Accept- ance/Commitment Letter, describing, in full, the amount of monies to be reimbursed to the owner for violation correction. The case will be suspended until the date of required violation correction, as expressed on the aforementioned Notice of ~iolation/~relhuinaAccept- ance Letter. (C) Reinspection of Subject Property At the time of required violation correction, the property will be reinspected by a Code Enforcement Officer for the Housing Inspection Division of the City's Department of Inspections, Permits and Licenses. The Inspector will determine at the time of reinspection if compliance has been attained and all required corrections have been made. If the required corrections have been made, the Code Enforcement Officer will notify the Rehab Incentive Program Program Coordinator to provide reimbursement for the cost of repairs, as originally expressed in the Commitment Letter. (D) Reimbursement for Repair Costs Upon notification of violation correction, the Rehab Incentive Program Program Coordinator will request a cheque from the City's Finance Department for the appropriate dollar amount as originally expressed in the Commitment Letter. The Rehab Incentive Program Coordinator will mail the cheque to the applicant, with an expression of the City's appreciation for helping to conserve and protect the local housing stock. c rS CT ONS, E 0 CITY OF LOUISVILLE RESOLUTION NO. 2 5 Y SERIES 1988 A RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 141, SERIES 1988s AND APPROVING THE NElGHBORHOOD SUBMISSION & REVIEW PRQCEDrJRES PURSUANT TO L.C.O. 153.04(C).

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OP LOUISVILLE

Section 1. That Resolution No. 141, Series 1988, is hereby rescinded.

Section 2. That the Board of Aldermen of the City of Louisville hereby approves procedures for reviewing prepared neighborhood plans. The procedures are attached hereto a~ Exhibit A and made a part hereof as if fully set out herein. Section 3. That this Resolution shall take effect rpon its passage and approval. -

P.B.A.

APPROVED: EL-I I

CITY OF muISVIUB

LOUIS~\LLE & IEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION EXHIBIT A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN SUBMISSION/REVIEW PROCESS

The following process is divided into four sections in accordance with LC0 5153.04 (C) . I. REVIEW BY CITIZENS AND/OR NEIGHBORHOOD TASK FORCE [LC0 S153.04 (C) (1) 1 Minimum of three public meetings: 1. Neighborhood review of problems and opportunities during the inventory and projection phases of the planning process. [LC0 S153.03(A) (1) and (2) 1 2. During the recommendation phase [LC0 5153.03 (A) (3)1. -. 3. During the implementation and priorities phases [LC0 S153.03 (A) (4) and (5) 1. The Neighborhood Plan Ordinance identifies the Neighborhood Task Force as a representative body for all public input during the preparation of the Plan. The Neighborhood Task Force shall be responsible for holding all public meetings in order to ensure citizen review. The Courier-Journal, and newsletters and other newspapers when available, shall be used to announce meetings on the Neighborhood Plan during its preparation. Records shall be kept relating to notice of meetings and persons in attendance. The Department of ~ei~hborhoodServices will be responsible for monitoring the process. Transmittal 1. Upon completion of the Neighborhood Task Force review, the Task Force chairman shall be responsible for submitting a letter to the Director of Neighborhood Services requesting review of the plan elements. The letter of transmittal should indicate the plan elements and any other support documentation submitted in support of the request for review. 2. The letter must indicate that the plan elements have been adopted by the Neighborhood Task Force at a formally designated meeting. Documentation 1. Along with the letter of transmittal, ten copies of the plan elements and any other support documentation which satisfies Louisville Code of Ordinances, Chapter 153, as -. amended, shall be submitted. The Department of Neighbor- hood Services will accept photostatic or other legible copies of such documents or portions thereof, provided such copies adequately indicate the essential information necessary for review. 11. REVIEW BY AFFECTED ORGANIZATIONS AND/OR AGENCIES [LC0 S153.04 (C) (2) 1 1. The Department of Neighborhood Services shall submit letters, along with copies of the draft plan, to the following agencies and individuals for review:

Department of Housing 6 Urban Development Department of Public Works Metro Parks Office for Economic Development Kentuckiana Regional Planning 6 Development Agency In addition, the following agencies and companies shall be involved when appropriate: (This list is not all inclusive.)

Louisville 6 Jefferson County Planning Commission

Department of Inspections, Permits 6 Licenses Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Landmarks C~InmisSi~nStaff Transit Authority of River City Metropolitan Sewer District Department of Public Safety Division of Police Fire Department Louisville 6 Jefferson County Board of Health Louisville Water Company

Louisville Gas & Electric Company South Central Bell 2. Agencies should approve, disapprove, or have no comment. - ~llagencies shall respond within 21 calendar days of receiving the draft plan. 3. The Department of Neighborhood Services will be responsible for collecting and summarizing all review comments.

4. copies of agency responses will be incorporated in the final plan document. The Department of Neighborhood services will coordinate any adjustments needed in response to technical concerns raised by the agencies.

5. The Department of Neighborhood Services may wish to set i up negotiation meetings to resolve any serious problems i brought out during the public agency review. - 111. REVIEW BY DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES [LCO 5153.04 (C) (3) 1 During the period of review by affected organizations and agencies, the plan shall also be presented to all appropriate Neighborhood Services Staff, as designated by the Director, for internal department review. A copy of the draft plan i shall be sent to the appropriate aldermanic sponsor(s) asking I for support and assistance in the review process.

11-26 I Upon completion of the review and final draft by the Depart- ment of Neighborhood Services, the Mayor shall notify the aldermanic sponsor in writing with regard to the review of the plan elements. Copies of all review comments will be attached to the letter. The Mayor will make one of three recommendations to the Board of Aldermen as listed below: 1. Approval - This means the Mayor approves and endorses the document and all of its contents. 2. Conditional Approval - If, during negotiations, a situa-- tion occurs where the neighborhood does not agree to a requested change and a compromise cannot be reached, an

I understanding can be reached that the Mayor endorses the plan but does not endorse or approve all its contents. 3. Disapproval - In this case, major problems have been identified. In the event of disapproval, a written statement will be sent to the aldermanic sponsor. The letter will note the reasons for disapproval and suggest specific corrective action necessary for approval. IV. GENERAL PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION [LC0 S153.04 (C) (4) 1 Upon submission- of the final plan by the Mayor to the Board of Aldermen, the Board shall follow normal procedures for holding a public hearing and adoption of any ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. , series 1988 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 153, SECTION 153.03 OF THE LOUISVILLE CODIFIED ORDINANCES ENTITLED CONTENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN TO INCLUDE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. - BE IT ORDAINED BY THE ClTY OF LOUISVILLE: SECTION L That Ordinance No. 153, Section 153.03, Series 1980, be and the same is amended to read as follows: Section 153.03. CONTENTS OF NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN

(A) Guidelines. The neighborhood plans or plan sections shall be prepared in accordance with the principles and guidelines of the comprehensive plan and shall Include:

(1) A description of the neighborhood as it presently exists and governmental actions contributing to its character.

(2) A projection of probable changes in the character of the neighborhood under existing governmental policies and programs.

(3) A recommendation for changes in the neighborhood to preserve or improve its general character.

(4) Propod for governmental actions which will encourage or facilitate the preservatfon or Improvement of the neighborhood.

(5) Development of recommended priorities both with respect to the proposed changes in the character of the neighborhood and recommend governmental actions designed to facilitate those

changes. (b) Mandatory sections. The neighborhood plan may be developed in separate sections, but shall include at a minimum: (1) A land use section, including the existing pattern of major public and private land uses, a future pattern of land use, and recommendations for necessary land use and zoning changes to i

facilitate that future pattern. !

(2) A transportation section, including a description of all existing - . .. modes of transportation, a projected transportation system for all .. ~. - .. ..~ . . . modes, and recommendations for implementation of proposed improvements.

(3) A needs assessment for sW other agmd sn sections in keeping . . ?:~ ,... -< - >. ' :.., ...... with division (A)(1) above indndhg net W ta aCnf as ...... - . ,. agreed upon, such as: (a) Housing section; (b) Economic development section; (c) Environmental-public health section; I (d) Social service section; (e) Public utilities section; (f) Open space and recreation sectlon; (g) Cityscape and urban desiv section;

(h) Public services section; (i) Historic prese~ationsection; 0 Other sections. I SECTION 2. That this ordlnance shall be effective upon its passage and approval.

C.B.A. P.B.A. \A7ADQ"/:APPROVED: MAYOR

RANK X. QUICKER.*- . JR. DIRECTOR OF LAW ORDINANCE NO. SERIES 1988

AN ORDlNANCE AMENDlNG CHAPTER 153 SECTION

153.04 OF THE LOUISVILLE CODlFlED-~- ORDINANCES- - --- ENTITLED PROCEDURES FOR DEVELOPMENT AND TO CORRECT CLERICAL ERRORS. (AS AMENDED).

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF LOUISVILLE:

SECTlON 1. That Ordinance No. 221, Series 1988 is repealed in its entirety. SECTlON 2. That Ordinance No. 153, Series 1980, Section 153.04 be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:

Section 153.04. PROCEDURES FOR DEVELOPMENT

(A) Participation by executive branch. All neighborhood plans or plan

I sections shall be prepared mdet eeneaet in cooperation with the I Department of Neighborhood Services. The plans shall include at a I minimum:

(1) The section(s) of the plan to be prepared.

(2) The minimum standards for research analysis and policy development.

(3) Any additional services unique to a particular plan.

(B+ C&en pmtieipaiieik The citizens er neighbetheed task leree sf Me neighberheed wkich is the stlejeet ef the eeneaet sh& be represented m the negeCiaeien end devdepment el the eeniraeb The Bevdepmeni ef the neighbetheed plan wlih plan seekhiens sh& eemply wlih the 6ity

el he&& GemmMy Bevdeprnent €)iitens PaWeipatien Phas i(

eltftts as of the effeeiive daie el tkis subehapter and as li may be amended ptwtlant ie req*ernentt, el the regnkeiens ef the Bltiied

States Begariment af Heuskg md Urban Bevebpment end laws ef the

U&ed Stahs Bengerrt; AS perCits te the eenttaet sh& be requited (e

adhere +e stleh eem-ee; -(8) Citizen participation. A task force of the subject neighborhood shall be represented in the development of the plan. The task force shall be appointed by the Mayor, with concurrence of the Aldermanic sponsor. It must include resident-wners of the neighborhood, and representatives of the neighborhood association, neighborhood business community, and other entities or organizations located in the neighborhood. The task force shall consist of at least five individuals, but no more than fifteen individuals. Staffing may consist of appropriate representatives from the Planning Commission, Department of Neighborhood Services, and the Board of Aldermen.

(C) Review of proposed neighborhood plans. All neighborhood plans or plan sections will at a minimum have the following reviews before adoption by the Board of Aldermen:

(1) Review by citizens or neighborhoe task force.

(2) Review by affected organizations or agencies.

(3) Review by Department of Neighborhood Adveeaey Services. (4) General public hearing.

SECTION 3. That this Ordinance shall becom? effective upon its passage and approval.

C.B.A. P.B.A.

APPROVED: MAYOR

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

DIRECTOR OF LAW \-/\ CITY OF LOUISVILLE Contents I .l#reiscan' ' be among the delights of our Introduction 1. landscape. They can give us beauty, shade,'and

Why LG&E trims trees.. . and how 2 protection from the wind; they ckprovide shelter and 1

Selecting the proper tree . I .6 food for birds and other wildlife. ' . ' ,) Planting and maintaining your'tree , . $,*' I! I, -I I When they're properly selekted, planted, i. < . , and maintained, t&s can add'distinction and value to'

our properiy - and to the rest of wrneighborhood as well. But when they're not; trees can cause problems that grow worse year by year.

- ' Poorly selected trees can spoil the .,' landscape, create a ntess, provide shadewhere it is not wanted, damage property, endanger people and plants, and disrupt utility service. - 1 Eventually, properiy owners must face the prospect of removing these problem trees - a situqtion

that could have been avoided by thoughtful planning in , . the beginning. I At LG&E, we're concerned about kees. , . 'Tlley are among our community's most valuable and moit beautiful assets. But & are alsothe leading 1 cause of disruptions to electric service. Nu can help - minimize such outages by allowing -our crews totrim treestthatmay interfere with your &vice-and by'

I planning carefully when yoi~plant trees or shrubs near

, our utility lines. , ' , i This booklet can help you choose trees that will grow well and look good in practically any restricted space - without posing a threat to the people

property around them. , - - W hy LG&E trims trees Electric wim are dangerous! Childien At 'ki&E,we'k especially concerned because should bq told never to climb trees near them, t$ . problem trees can disrupt seryice to our customers. 'and homeor~nersshould never to trim trees . Trees are directly responsible for more than 80 percent near them. To reduce the inconvenience of ~owr of our elecwic power outages. . ~ ~- dC. Some ofthe problems are obvious. Wind, outaies, we must trim trees that may interfere with. ,A\!h/ lightning, ice, snow, and even'rain-soaked leaves can our electric lines. We hire professional tree experts who, , \ cause b&ches and eniire trees to break, falling on our specialize in this type of work. They are supervised by ', our own professional foresters. wires. When this happens, power can be disrupted to a 41 single customer - or an entire neighborhood. We use the natural tree-trimming method But a tree or branch doesn't have to bdak to recommended by the National Arborists Asspciation. cause problems. All it has to do {s touch the wires. This method preserves the Ealth of the tree, while At a minimum, branches touching wires can cause. d~rectingits growth away from the wires. momentary short circuits that cause lights to flicker, Branches which grow toward the wires clocks to stop, and electronic equipment to are cut nearly flush with a suitable parent l~mb malfunction. If the cause isn't found, the& kinds of- toward the center ofthe tree. Branches that annoyancescan occur again and again. groy Fay from the wires are left undisturbed. But when branches,break electric wires, or This type oftrimming will reduce the growth of I cause inassive short circuits, the inconvenience is unsightly "water sprouts" and "suckers," while much greater. Lights, applhs,furkes, kr I allowing the tree-to h&l and encouraging the rest of , .conditioners,'and computers can't work withqut the tree to grow naturally ., , electricity; refrigerated food can spoil. ,We remove any- branches,that.maycause If the wires are knocked down, they can be pro61ems, inclbding those above the lines that may sag \,

very hazardous. Live wires can start fires, and can kill, into the lines or break if covered with snow or ice. , . , people and animals.. I

- . , m Natural The amount of wood we remove depends poses an immediate danger and we can't reach the Tkimming Methods on two things: the clearance needed around the wires property owner, it may be necessary to remwe it and the growth rate of the tree. High-voltage lines /// without permission. s3==' requiie more clearance than low-voltage lines. And We remwe these trees at our cost. When we fast-growing trees must be trimmed more than slow- trim or remove a tree, we clean up the area and haul growing trees, to make sure they w6n't interfere with . away all the brush and wood. Then we treat the stump the wires. with a chemical appmved by federal and state agencies 'Fast-graving tre& include black locust, to keep it from resprouting and to help it decay. We box elder, elm, silver maple, wakr maple, sycamore, will gladly cut the wood into fireplace lengths and After 'lbp Rimming Alter Thmueh- Trimming wild cherry, willow, and yellow poplar. -may leqit if the property owner requests it. I 1 &was much as SIX to smfeet per pr. When storms bock tksintaour lines, we Slower-growing trees include some of our do not clean up or'remove branches, limbs, and trees best\lapdscape varieties: ash, beech, hickory, oak, and that were damaged due to the severe weather. fiowever, sugar ntqple. They gmw only two to three feet per pr. if undamaged trees have be trimmed to restore Some trees thmten bur lines so seriously service we will remove those trimmings. that they must be removed. Examples are trees that If you have any questions about our tree- are weak, diseased, dying, or damaged; and trees that , . After Side 'Rimming . , trimming policies, please give us a call at 589-3500. ,, must be trimmed so severely that they wwld be very unsightly. . .

. Bef& we trim tkes, we try to notify property.owner, either in,person or by lekinga card qn the doorknob. If we believe a gee must be removed, w ask the owner to give us .peimlssion, where - ,appropriate. In many cases, we don't need perptssion

to trim or remtrees, but we try to contact-the , After Under Rimming property owner as a matter ofcourtesy. And if the tree Is,electing the proper- tree - These fadon can make the Choice of a tree Selecting a tree should be a thoughtful process. Iyou seem much more compligted. And there's another want good results now and in the future, you must factor we'd like you to consider, as well: choose trees that vill ao well'& their 1ocations.without When planting trees near elektric lines, .

But there aa other factors you should. . I Forhmtely, there's a wide &iety of trees I consider as well. , , < thai meet most of these coqsiderations. And there are ' Id an urban area, the eventual size dthe &tall-.&wing kdbs that can be just as beautiful tree is wry import&. A blue sp&tree, for example, as trees. The list that hem on page X) miry help you \ can be a hagriificent swim& if ti plantid in,& 8 chop?an attqtiw tree or iix practi~ally open. But if it's planted next to the house or near uNi . . lines, i\ will grow larger and larger until it must be , trimmed or red. .\ ' The quality ofthe tree is also important. A slow-growing sugar or hard mapli can bea joy f& prs. But a fast-growing silver or water rflaple has i wood so wak that it kill drop twigs 4 small branches throughout the ~ar.~nd a storm may break large branches or the entire tree. - Growing conditions are important, too. I Urban areas pose many special pkblems for mes. Tbe location'pu choose will determine what these . problems will be.'. / . . lanting and maintaining your tree After the tree is. planted, soak the ground ,' First, select a suitable loc@on. ~oublk-checkthe spot thoroughly 'I'Ikn spread bark or woahip mulch on to make sure that the tree won't conflict with pavement, top of the ground in a circle that extends At least 18 buildings, herplants, and werhed and underground inches away from the tree trunk. 8; Utilitylines. , 1 'The first two years are critical for the I lb determine where&re may be survival and health of aneiv tree. Water is very / underground utility lines, call BUD (Before ibu Dig) at important; '-r let ;he soil dry out during the growing 361-2351 in the Louisvdle ldcal calling area, or toll-free season, and soak it thoroughly'when you water it. Keep at 1-800-752-6007if you are outside the immediate alert for insects and other pedts, and sbray the tree if Louisville area. \ ' necessary Fertilize with a p&~~tdesigned for trees; , Plant the tree during the proper season. In follow the diktions on +package. our area, spring is best - and is the only time to plant bare-root trees. A tree with its roots in ii ball of eaith wrapped with burlap, or a tree grown in a container, can be planted any time from spring through fall. If itS planted in hot weather, however, it will require extra

watering and care. ,'

, Make. the hole at least twice the diameter of the root ball or thespread of the roots, and somewhat deeper. Mix peat moss or other drganic material with the dirt &m the hole. Then place enough of the dirt

the same level, relative to the surface of the ghnd, $at it wegrowing before.

Deciduous 'Rees Evergreen Ttees . . Name %hates Mature Comments ~ame 'Iblerates Mature Comments Height Height! . Maple Arborvitae, DG, LS, UC , 10'-20' Ornamental; good for scree Amur WG. LS, UC, ST , Orienial. . rhuja orientalis ,. .

. , Japanese Colorful leaves; must have Hemlock, ' DG, DS, LS, UC 20' ' ' Pest-free; watch for spider , qcerpalmarwn LS 25' ideal conditions of light shade weeping x mites acerjbponicum 10'-15' ou will .have leaf scorch. Canadian Needs welldrained soil. tsugac~~zpis. pendula ' Paperbark 20' Hard to find. Grows slowly . . / ocer grisewn . Does not tolerate extremely c HOlb WG, DG,LS 30' Deciduous; red berries wet or dry soil. ! F'osSumhaw '. -' retained in winter. Male tm iler&ciduoiduo' , . required nearby for female I 'Ttident UC,ST 20' Pest-free; hard to find bear frui!. 1. . aker buergemnwn Juniper . ,- " 00, LS, UC lo'-20' ~urable;sun-loving, dry juniperus, Mall condikns; watch for bag Flurn, purpleleaf DG. UC 15' I Blossoms; colorful leaves; : . . . namedprunus inedible Ruit. Watch,for . varieties , . worms , , I: varieties diseases and insect problems . . ,sbiuce,dwarf - DG,U 6'-8' ' ' Very slow graving; watch f Redbud, eastern LS 25'-30' Pink blossoms Alberta 't spider mites pica glauca cercis canaderlsis * I . .. Servicebeny, WG, DG, LS, UC, 25'-31)' Showy clusters of white Pine -; , . , . . I Mugho. , DG,LS, UC . 6' Slow grower d~f~ST' ~IMTS , (shadblow. , pinus rnugho ' ' . shadbush) , '. 8, arnelanchier , '. ' i 'Umbrella , DG, LS, uc ~.-n IF - ~ong-needled;pest-free; schhpitys , likes protected area away arbom t I +qticillata , .. '1 ' fromsalt Silverbell, LS, UC 25' Past-free; bellrshaped white Carolina flowers; slow grower; hard to / zAz~a,Ls3uc. 20' , Likes elldrained soil halesia camlina find I ! upright varieties \ Smoke tree DG 20' Unique blossoms

corinus coggvgria ~ 1. s i . , , ,

L ' %G - wetomud LS - Light Shmje WG - wn ~mnd ' LS-Lightshade .- .. DG - Dry Gmund DO-DryOmund ,, Urban Conditions / ' ,. . UC - Urban Condilims UC - , DS -,Deep Shade ST- Streside hation Ds- Deep Shrde ST - Streaside Location

~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~-~~~p ~.~ . . ~. 'Zgll Shrubs 1. Can Be Used i" Place of Trees Deciduous Shrubs Deciduous Shrubs

Name Werates Mature Cmments Name. Tolerates Mature Comments Height Height BUC~' DG 6'-10' Reddish-pink blossoms . , hiwt DG, LS. UC 10'-20' Pest-free: select hardiest Bottlebush ligustrutn varieties varieties aesculus parvif[om I, Spicebush WG 6'-15' Blossoms . . lindehl benzoin Burning bush LS. UC 61-8' Blazing fall color; not tolerant aesfivare euonymus alafa , , of drought ~ -- ~ ~p --- ~p- - Viburnum ' LS,UC 5'-15' Pest-free; blossoms; inedible mod, DG, LS, UC~ 10'-20' Pest-free; blossoms; inedible vibui-num varieties berries carnelian ckmy berries (oriental Winterberry WG,DS, LS 5'-K)' ' Irkdible ber~ies dogwod) ilex verticillata cornus mas varieties (bush form) . . .,, Witch &l WG, DS, LS 10'-25' Small yellow f l&rs open Filbert DG, UC 20' Pest-free; interestihg twisted hamamelis ,, crown; buds sometimes killed coryh varieties branches . . virginiana in winter H 7 Fmythii W,UC \ 10' Pest-free; blossoms fwsythia varieties

Honeysuckk WG, DG, LS, UC 10'15' Pest-free; blossoms; i'nedible lonicem varieties berries; will take over an area

Hydrangea ' LS . K)'-25' ' Blossoms. Good varieties Arborvitae WG, DG 10'-25' . Good for screen; watch hydmngea include Oakleaf and Peegee fhuja. tall spider mites' varieties varieties ..~

Mockorange LS 40' Blossoms. Old bushes caibe h,Hicks DG,LS, UC 10'-20' Good for screen; does not philadelphus rejuvenated by pruning ,. . . taxus media. . , tolerate wet ground virginalis varieties . , upright varieties , Oliw, Russian DG ' 20' Silvery grey leaves; inedible elaegnus " berries angusrjfdia , -

\ WG 'WetGmnd LS Lighl - Shade WG- WelOraund LS- Lightshade DO-DvGrmnd UC UrbanCanditions - DO- Dryhnd UC - Urban Condilions DS - Dcep Shade ST - Slrccuide location OS - Deep Shade , ST - Sm&si& hation 1 . . .a';e hope tl@' :,this bookletcan'I help' you to, >' select and plant good trees for restricted spaces. And we hope that it has helped you understand why &per . . pruning and planting are essenfial for safe and reliable , electric service. would like to thank the following for their hqlpin mparing this bodet: Robert HdU,forester, ~eioParks. Clarence E: ''Buddy" Hul$nch, .

, ' horticulturist, Ber@eiiForest. : Donna Michael, urban'&eultyrist: . , Jefferson Countj branch, ~nh~sityof Kentucky Cooperative Extension Sew@. "Tee" Ray, Kentuck$ Shi& Association

I' . AmyRice, arborist, city of imisville. , Mark Timons, horticultural consultant. U.S. Department of Agriculture and University of Kentucky Cooperative

I Extension SetvicE, for their nbny helpful ' publications on trees and shrubs. , PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT MORATORIUM 2 Explanation To encourage the repair, rehabilitation, restoration, or stabilization of existing residential properties or commercial facilities, the City of buisville and Jefferson County have the power, under Kentucky law, to grant moratoriums on property assessment or reassessment.

Existing residential and commercial structures at least 25 years old may qualify for a reassessment moratorium if:

1. The costs of the improvements made to the structure to repair, rehabilitate, restore, or stabilize it equal at least 25% of the value of the improvements to the property based on the latest assessment made by the County Property Valuation Administrator, or

2. The qualifying property is within a "target arear,', a census tract where at least 70% of the residents living in that tract have income below 80% of the median income for Jefferson County or 20% of the residents living in that tract have incomes below the poverty level, the cost of the improvements must be equal to at least 10% of the value of the improvements to the property based on the latest assessment.

The City of buisville Division of Building lnspection and the office of the Property .- Valuation Administrator administer the moratorium program. E

Applicants for a moratorium certificate must pay a $40.00 fee. Half the fee will be a transferred to the Property Valuation Administrator who will make an appraisal of the subject property at its fair cash value on the appli~ation~date,and half will be retained by the - i Division of Building lnspection to pay the program's administrative costs. Applications for moratorium certificates should be made to the Division of Building lnspection at least 30 days before any construction work on the property begins. Each application should include or be accompanied by:

1. A general description of the property. 2. Proof that the property is at least 25 years old. 3. A general description of the proposed use of the property. 4. The nature and extent of the restoration, repair, rehabilitation, or stabilization and cost estimates based on bids submitted to owner. 5. If the building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, is on the Survey of Historic Sites in Kentucky, is in a Preservation District, or designated as a Louisville Landmark, approval from the City Landmarks Division showing compliance with the Commission's standards must accompany the application. 6. A time schedule for undertaking and completing the project. 7. If the property is commercial, a descriptive list of the fixed building equipmmt, tb- will be part of the facility and a statement of the economic advantage (including expected construction employment) should be part of the application.

The applicant will have two years to complete the improvements unless an extension is granted by the Division of Building Inspection. In no case will the application be extended beyond two additional years. An application will be voided if not acted upon within two 7 years. When the applicant informs the Division of Building lnspection that the work has been completed on the property, the Division will conduct an on-site property inspection to certify that the improvements described in the application have been completed. The Division of Building lnspection shall require work completed on historic sites and structures to conform with approval issued by the Landmarks Division. The Division of Building lnspection will then certify to the Property Valuation Administrator that the improvements have been completed and the moratorium certificate will be issued. However, no moratorium certificate will be issued on property for which there are delinquent tax bills.

The moratorium will become effective on the next assessment date after the moratorium certificate was issued and will remain in effect for five years. I An assessment or reassessment moratorium certificate may be transferred or assigned by the holder of the certificate to a new owner of lessee of the property.

Any property granted an assessment or reassessment moratorium may be eligible for another moratorium certificate if three years have passed since the previous moratorium ended.

On the next assessment date following the expiration, cancellation, or revocation of an assessment or reassessment moratorium. the property will be assessed on the basis of its full fair cost value. - - E IV. DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES

- REHABILITATION TAX INCENTIVES li The Tax Reform Act of 1986 permits owners and some lessees to take a 20-percent income tax credit on the cost of certified substantial rehabilitation of certified historic structures for industrial, commercial, or rental residential purposes. The law also permits a 10-percent credit for substantial rehabilitation of nonhistoric structures built prior to 1936 if the post- rehabilitation use is nonresidential. In neither case can the credit be included in the depreciable basis. Generally, the work must be completed within two years, although it may be phased over a maximum five-year period, ifthe development plan is initially conceived and presented in that manner. The credit is taken when the project (or the phase) is completed and put to use. The rehabilitated property is depreciated using the straight-line method over 27.5 years for residential property and over 31.5 years for nonresidential property. For buildings eligible for the 10-percent credit, there is a strictly applied requirement that specific percentages of external walls and internal structural framework be retained. Taxpayers who sell rehabilitated property within five years are subject to recapture of the tax credit at the rate of 20 percent for each year less than five. There is no recapture after five years. . . . . For investment consultation in the City of Louisville, contact the Landmarks Division of -- Inspections, Permits & Licenses. E

WHAT is substantial rehabilitation? To qualify as substantial, the cost of rehabilitation must equal or exceed the adjusted basis 'S of the property or $5,000, whichever is greater. To calculate the basis, the following 3 equation is used: cost of property, plus capital improvements, less the value of the land, less depreciation.

WHAT is a certified historic structure? A certified historic structure is: A structure individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places, or: A structure certified by the National Park Service (NPS) as contributing to a registered district. A registered district is one listed in the National Register, or designated under a state or local statute that has been certified to contain criteria that will substantially achieve the purpose of preserving and rehabilitating buildings of significance to the district. In addition, the district must be certified as substantially meeting all the requirements for listing of districts in the National Register.

WHAT is a certified rehabilitation?

A certified rehabilitation is a rehabilitation certified by NPS as being consistent with the historic character of the property and, where applicable, the district in which it is located. NPS refers to the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation" in certifying rehabilitations. HOW is a building or rehabilitation certified? NPS requires that owners complete a special form, the Historic Preservation Certification Application (Form 10-168). for all certification requests. The form is divided into three parts: Part 1 for evaluating the historic significance of a building; Part 2 for describing rehabilitation work; and Part 3 for requesting certification of completed work. All applications are submitted to and reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) before being submitted to NPS, which makes the final certification decision after considering the SHPO's recommendations. Part 1 evaluations need not be prepared for buildings already individually listed in the National Register. A building within a district must be certified, based on review of a Part 1 application, as contributing to the significance of the district. Part 1 applications are also used to gain preliminary determinations of significance for individual buildings not yet listed in the Register; these determinations become final when such buildings are actually listed. Proposed rehabilitaiton is described on Part 2 of the application form. NPS issues a preliminary approval of proposed work to projects that, as described, meet the Secretary's Standards. The preliminary approval becomes final when the work is completed and NPS can certify that the "Standards" have been met.

IS there a fee for certification? NPS charges a fee based on the cost of rehabilitation.

WHERE can more information be obtained? There are approximately 13.000 certifiable structures in the City of Louisville and an unknown number of others built prior to 1936. It is well documented that over $150 million has been invested in Louisville using the federal historic rehabilitation tax credit. However, there is no way to estimate the additional millions invested using the nonhistoric credit, since there is no application process for it. For help in identifying whether a property might be eligible for tax-advantaged rehabilitation, for advice concerning design and rehabilitation methods that will meet the applicable standards, and for technical assistance with the application process, please contact the staff of the Landmarks Commission, a division of the Department of Inspections, Permits and Licenses. The office is on the second floor of the City Hall Annex at 609 West Jefferson Street. The telephone number is 625-3501. APPENDIX Ill NOMINAL GROUP RESPONSES APPENDIX 111: CONTENTS

Nominal Group Process

Table A: Clifton Positive Attributes, Ungrouped

Table B: Clifton Negative Attributes, Ungrouped

Table C: Clifton Positive Attributes, Grouped Table D: Clifton Negative Attributes, Grouped TABLE NO. NOMINAL GROUP PROCESS Summary: The nominal group process is useful for the creative generation of the ideas and the selection of priorities. It is used to identify problems, issues, and solution components. The technique has been developed from research that shows that people think most creatively while working in silence, but in the presence of others. During this meeting, the nominal group technique will be divided into the following phases: 1. Individual recording of ideas 2. Round-robin listing of ideas 3. Discussion for clarification 4. Vote and Tabulation. Note: The role of the group leader is extremely important. We will provide a trained staff person as the group leader. The people in your group will identify their problems and their priorities. Our ability to listen depends on your talking to US. All supplies will be on each table at the beginning of the meeting - flip chart, felt pens, pencils, question sheet, etc. Phase I - Individual recording (10-20 min.) A. The purpose of the nominal group session is to listen to the ideas of each person present. The first step is "idea gathering" and consists of group members writing their individual ideas down on paper in silence. B. The group leader will read the first of two questions. The group members will answer the question on scrap paper provided, working in silence for about 5 minutes. The team leader will answer questions about the question, but will not use examples that will bias answers. C. You are to jot down any ideas that come to mind in short sentences or phrases - this is a work sheet which will not be collected. You may wish to use examples. This is perfectly all right. Remember we are interested in problems not solutions. Please be brief and to the point. The more to the point and descriptive the comments are, the easier they are to deal with later. Please do not talk during the silent work period so others may finish their thinking. After completion introduce the second question and repeat (B) 1 and (C). I Note: Research has shown that the most creative ideas are generally after a person's "first" reactions have been written down. Research has also shown that this nominal generation of ideas, in the presence of others, results in more and higher quality ideas than traditional brainstorming techniques. Phase I1 - Round-Robin Listing (30 min.)

A. Following the nominal group work session, the ideas of the group will be listed on two flip charts so that all may see them. Each item will be numbered. The ideas will be listed one at a time, with people giving ideas in a round-robin fashion until all ideas are listed. Each person in turn should briefly state one of his ideas without discussion. We will encouraqe- the qroup- - members to phrase their comments as problems, needs, or issues. . . B. We will write the exact words used by the person speaking. I C. We will encourage members of the group to suggest new ideas even if they do not have them written on paper. D. We will remind people who start discussions that discussion is the next step and should be reserved until I all ideas have been expressed. Unnecessary discussion at this point only serves to prolong the process. Note: The round-robin procedure facilitates the participation of each person, yet focusses attention on the ideas rather than "who said what." It further tends to increase our individual tolerances to conflicting ideas. List table number and question on top of page. Phase I11 - Group Discussion (15 min.) A. When all ideas have been listed on flip charts, we will encourage the group to discuss ideas that may not be understood. This provides the opportunity to clarify confusing statements. We will ask people to try to understand each idea without making-value statements about ideas. The use of examples is very useful for confusing items. B. We will read through the written list of ideas so that each one is reviewed. If an idea is not understood, the person who nominated the idea will be given the first opportunity to clarify it. C. Clear duplication of ideas will be eliminated. Attempts to combine ideas, however, will be resisted, since this often dilutes the idea articulated. Any change in the wording of an idea must be agreed upon by the person who nominated the idea. Phase IV - Vote and Tabulation (20 min.)

A. We will distribute five (5) 3" x 5" cards to each person in the group. We will ask the group members to select the five most important problems from the complete list of responses to the first question and list one item on each *.card. Include both the number of the idea and the word- B. Each group member will be asked to spread all of his cards in front of him. c. The group leader will assist the participants through the priority setting process by asking as follows: 1. Of the five problems you have selected as most important, we can only work on one. Which will it be? Put a #5 on this card with a circle around it and lay this card aside. (First priority) 2. Discard one of the problems you have left. Put a #l on this card with a circle around it and lay it aside. (Fifth priority)

3. Discard another problem. Put a #2 on this card with a circle around it and lay it aside. (Fourth priority) 4. Of the four problems you have left, which one do you want to work on. Put a #4 on this card with a circle around it and lay it aside. (Second priority) 5. Pick another problem you feel we should work on. Put a #3 on this card, circle it, lay it aside. (Third priority) Note: Research has shown that people are better able to discriminate at the extremes, as opposed to trying to deal with a large group of items at one time. D. Now the group leader will ask each group member to announce his five items and the number of points he gave to each, i.e. - "Item #l = 5 points, item A23 - 4 points, etc." The group leader will write these points beside the items on the flip chart. After all points have been recorded, we will total the number for each item. (Collect cards and place a rubber band around them, note table number) .

E. Repeat A through E for the responses to the second question.

Nominal Group CLIFTN CLIFTON NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN NOMINAL GROUP RESPONSE QUESTION :WHAT ARE THE POSITIVE FEATURES OF THE CLIFTON NEIGHBORHOOD .

. . ~. 1

Convenient location lor public facilities Irecreation/leieure). Sell contained neighborhood.

Affordable houning. City atmosphere. Little M-1 zoning. Close pmdmity to health facilitiss/services. Good bus eervlce.

Historic ambiance. QUESTION :WHAT ARE THE POSITIVE FEATURES OF THE CLIFTON NEIGHBORHOOD . GROUP 2: MELLETT.

. . - . .. .. -1 Historic landmarks.

Affordable houaing. Reaidential charaoter. Architectural character On bun lines.

Good mix of businesa and reaidential. No smoke atack industry.

Green space along 1-64, Good demographic mix Iyoung/old, rich/pmr). Businesses are within walking distance. Closeness to work. Hlgh above sea level/flmdln$ - -topography. Excellent police patkale on Bmwnsboro Road. Beet acceea to new waterfront development with no restrictions. Good fire station response. Population density. Modern and traditional shopping areas. -c-Qi United Crescent Hill Ministries. zOD Trees/ landecaping. a nvlm a 24L Very gmd access to parks on the river/river. No- Friendly neighbors - concerned. %-om..=<> Effective community council. rn Good churches in the ares ~05n -4 r QUESTION :WHAT ARE TllE POSITIVE FEATIJRES OF THE CLIFTON NElGHBORHOOD .

,GROUP.- - 3: HULEFELD. RAKKINGT_+_-. i .- I /<-+TJY~.~T~I 5 I TOTAL ~STATEMENT I Art galleries on Frankfort Avenue. m Qulet neighborhood.

" 3 Convenient location - bus service. Operation Brightside. Bingham Park. Schml for the Blind. Small scale. commercial - - no drive through reetaurante etc. Affordable housing (owner).

Two gmd restaurants (Frankfort Avenue).

Good balance - - business and residential. Shopping centers on Brownsborn Road - - convenient. Influx of young homeowners rehabbing. wls (Barrett and Franklin).

Ample parking - - Frankfort Avenue. CLIFTON NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN NOMINAL CROUP RESPONSE QUESTION :WHAT ARE THE NEGATIVE FEATURES OF THE CI.TWTnN NFIcunnuuMn Tuav vnll nrun u-c- is...-..-...-

" 3111 1 I I I Abandon care. 412Ill I - .,~,, , 1111 , Poor electric service from L.G and E. b Deterioration of dwellings. -.s lnconvenience of the railroad. ul Poor maintaince aubdivieion of Bingham Park. -.< Lack of seneltivity to historic preservation. - Proximity to industry. ID Weak commerce strip of Brownborn Road. m Inconsistent /unfocused commercial development on Frankfort p venue. a3 Lack of restaurants. New Main Street not developed properly. C ID Lack of recrealion program for youth/unattended youth. -h Undesirable business. -h ID High weeds. trash, overgrown trees. 7 UI Improper alley use between Peterson and Ewing Avenues. $ Poor alley sight line-. Potential for high deneity development. Heavy traffic on residential streeta. Absentee landlords. Dangerous bars. Lack of off-street parking. Lack of on-street parking on Frankfort venue. Vacant lot8 unattended. 26 Tight parking due to apartments. 27 Vacant structures unattended. 28 Sidewalks in disrep+r, lack of sidewalks and curbs. Need for more street lights.

No backup trash pickup (Monday Holiday). Air pollution. ul Dratnage/pwr M.S.D. maintenance. Dannerous intersection Payne St. and Ewing Ave. -Also Pope St. and Frankfort ~ve. Handicap acceasibllity. 0 Pmr Bus ahelter maintenance. 0 Overhead utilities. .-2 Overly dense residential use. QUESTION :WHAT ARE THE NEGATIVE FEATURES OF THE CLIFTON NEIGHBORHOOD THAT YOU FIND MOST IMWRTANT. CROUP 2: MELJLETT. -. V) NT 1 0 comparable Uroceriea in the neghborhmdjauperstore. C High crime rate fat night). 7 n Limited access Lo Cherokee Park. rn.. Air pollution from R. R Willim~on. High number of apartments on Frankfort Avenue. r Lack of adherence to crosswalks by mobrlets. 0 Conditions of sidewalks and tree limbs blocklng sidewalks. -.s Low pay scale at surroundinu industries. VI Poor land use, underdeveloped land /use. -5. Some property ia badly maintained. ID Leash laws and noise ordinance are not observed (dogs). w J Subatd. b vac. comm. h empty bulldings along Frankfort Ave (Mellwood to KSB). Q Poorly renovated commercial structures along Franklort Avenue. L Lack of good pedestrian feeder routea to main commercial area on Brownsborn. 2, Motorists Present a hazard to children in the neighborhood. 2 Need for sidewalks on Brownebom Road snd State Street 7 Repeat offenders remain on the etreeta. UI Lack of curfew for teenagers in the area. ! 0 ' H3 Need impmved street lighting. H Poor representation from City and County workers in the area. 7 Lack of neighbo'rhmd identity to outsiders. m cg Lack of a communlty center. J Ineffective use of park lands. Lack of malnt. of sidewalk along Brownabom Rd. between Coral and Clifton. < Lack of entertainment for teenagers. xm No good restaurants in the area J No block watch. 2. Auto repair on Frankfort Avenue and Pope Street 3 Pmr emergency access on Keata and other streets due to the railroad tracks. l0 Condltion of eome of the alleys. Unappealing major commercial area (Kroger complex - - "dirty Kmger"). n Trash left in alleys streets and sidewalks. sa QUESTION I :WHAT ARE THE NEGATIVE FEATURES OF THE CLIFTON NEIGHBORHOOD THAT~~~~~- vnrr . .- -FlNn MnaT -...IMDnUTAW -..--.... GROUP 3: HULEFELD.

. ------~~ ~ ...... - -- -7 "Milly's Place" - - mugh bar, crime - - clientele. DAV store - - appearance looks junky. n side streeta, rankf fort Avenue. Brownsborn Road. .. Abandoned , under maintained hounea (Toll House). Vandalism - - property, cars. r Accessiblity 0 - - curb cuts stores (wheelchairs). E. Vacant lots, veeda. ~n Inadequate street lights. Inadequate parking - - apartments not providing. No aldewalka on aome ~idestreets, not maintained .** m Not enough play areae (kids). m Trees being lost - - L.G.&E. 3 Buzzers,Clilton and Frankfort , too loud. cannot hear traffic. a Dogs, cats not kept in. L Need better play equipment in Bingham Park. Police not vlsible (don't walk the beat). m,-* Difficulty establishing a Block Watch (80%too high ). tic 0 Footnote : **Streets limted include N. Clifton, Sycamore , Brownsboro . S. Jane , State, ...... n 0c 3 CLIFTON NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN NOMINAL GROUP RES WNSE---- QUESTION :WHAT ARE THE POSITIVE FEATURES OF THE CLIFTON NEIGHBORHOOD .

1-1 I GROUPING ul 4 ACCESS o 13 ACCESS 14 ACCESS n 11 ACCESS lose proximity to the rlver. ? 21 ACCESS Close proximity to health facilities/services. ACCESS TOTAL Older nelghborhmd with beautiful trees. Self contained neighborhood. Architecture. Noted historic Landmarks.

~ Historic ambiance. EW1RONMENT:PHYSICAL TOTAL 7 ENVIR0NMENT:SOCIAL 3 Hetemgeneoua community mix. 11 ENVIRONMENT:SOCIAL Community pride. L 19 ENV1RONMENT:SOCIAL City atmosphere. 26 ENVIR0NMENT:SOCIAL Good senior citizen programs. 2 EWIR0NMENT:SOCIAL TOTAL 7 10 GEOLOGY TOTAL 16 GOVERNMENT TOTAL Gmd emergency aervlcea. 5 12 LAND USE: GENERAL Neighborhood elementary achml. 24 LAND USE: GENERAL Good buelnems/resldential mix. o 21 LAND USE: GENERAL School for the Blind. LAND USE: GENERAL TOTAL 2 1 LAND USE: COMMERCIAL Art orientation of buaineas. % 28 LAND USE: COMMERClAL Developing commercLal strips. - LAND USE: COMMERCIAL TOTAL 20 LAND USE: INDUSTRIAL Little M-1 zanlng. 3 9 LAND USE: PARKS Bingham Park/ other neighborhood parka. . 6 LAND USE: RESlDENTlAL Few large apartment complexes /low denaity. 3 18 LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL Affordable housing. In LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL TOTAL 0 3 TRANSPORTATION Convenient to expressways. 22 TRANSPORTATION Good bus service. 26 TRANSPORTATION 3. TRANSPORTATION TOTAL Ln LO. 0 3 QUESTION :WHAT ARE THE POSITIVE FEATURES OF THE CLIFTON NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP 2: MELLETT. - 1#1 CODE 1 21 ACCESS 30 ACCESS cesa to parks on the river/river. ACCESS TOTAL Hiatoric landmarks.

Architectural character Very good view of the city lime-lights. Treeal landscaping.

Good senior cltizens program. -- Friendly. Good demographic mix (young/old, rlch/pmr). Population density. 1 United Crescent Hill Mlnlatries. Friendly neighbore - concerned. Effective communitv council. - Good churches in the area. ENVIR0NMENT:SOCIAL TOTAL 22 GEOLOGY High above sea level/flwding - -topography. 23 GOVERNMENT Excellent police patrola on Brownsboro Roed. 26 GOVERNMENT Cood fire atation response. GOVERNMENT TOTAL 15 LAND USE: GENERAL Good mix of buslneae and residential. 18 LAND USE: GENERAL Green space along 1-64. LAND USE: GENERAL TOTAL 12 LAND USE: COMMERCIAL Small number of drinking estebllshmente. 16 LAND USE: INDUSTRIAL No smoke stack industry. 6 LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL Aifordable housing. 6 LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL Residential character. 17 LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL Concentration of arts-related bualneaaea. 27 LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL Modern and traditional shopping arean. LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL TOTAL 3 TRANSPORTATION Clone proximity to all expressways in and out. oi Louievllle. 4 TRANSPORTATION !ill Very few traffic problems. 8 TRANSPORTATION On bus lines. 10 TRANSPORTATION Close to the downtown. 20 TRANSPORTATION Busineseea are wlthln walking distance. 24 TRANSPORTATION Best acceea to new waterfront development with no reetrictions. TRANSPORTATION TOTAL QUESTION :WHAT ARE THE POSITIVE FEATURES OF THE CLIFTON NEIGHBORHOOD .

111 CODE 1 12 ECONOMICS I for real estate value appreciation. I 2 ENVlR0NMENT:PHYSICAL Quiet neighborhmd. 17 ENVIRONMENTPHYSICAL Convenient library (Crescent Hill) and schmls (Barrett and Fra ENVIRONMENTPHYSICAL TOTAL 11 ENVIR0NMENT:SOCIAL Many churches and daycare. 16 ENVIRONMENT:SOCIAL Influx of young homeownere rehabbing. ENVIR0NMENT:SOCIAL TOTAL 4 GOVERNMENT Operation Brlghtslde. 6 LAND USE: GENERAL Schml for the Blind. 14 LAND USE: GENERAL Good balance - - businesa and residential. LAND USE: GENERAL TOTAL 1 LAND USE: COMMERCIAL Art galleries on Frankfort Avenue. 7 LAND USE: COMMERCIAL Small ecale commercial - - no drive thmugh restaurants eke. 10 LAND USE: COMMERCIAL Two gmd reataurante (Frankfort Avenue). 13 LAND USE: COMMERCIAL New businensea opening. 16 LAND USE: COMMERCIAL Shopping centera on Brownsborn Road - - convenient. LAND USE: COMMERCIAL TOTAL 6 LAND USE: PARKS Bingham Park. 8 LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL Affordable housing (owner). 9 LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL Beautiful old homes. LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL 19 PARKING Ample parking - - Frankfort Avenue. 3 TRANSPORTATION Convenient location - bum service. 18 TRANSPORTATION Sidewalks in moat of the neighborhood. TRANSPORTATION TOTAL CLIFTON NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN NOMINAL GROUP RESPONSE QUESTION :WHAT ARE THE NEGATIVE FEATURES OF THE CLIFTON NEIGHBORHOOD .

It1 CODE 1

1 ENVIRONMENT: PHYSICAL- 3 ENVIRONMENT: PHYSICAL 6 ENVIRONMENT: PHYSICAL I ENVIRONMENT: PHYSICAL oor mainhinee eubdlvision of Bingham Park. 8 ENVIRONMENT: PHYSICAL ack of sensltivlty to historic preservation. 16 ENVIRONMENT: PHYSICAL High weeds, trash, overgrown tree.. 26 ENVIRONMENT: PHYSICAL Vacant lots unattended.

27 ENVIRONMENT:~ PHYSICAI.~ ~ Vacant structures unattended. 33 ENVIRONMENT: PHYSICAL Air pollution. 34 ENVIRONMENT PHYSICAL Drainage/pmr M.S.D. maintenance. ENVIRONMENT: PHYSICAL TOTAL 2 ENVIRONMENT: SOCIAL 14 ENVIRONMENT: SOCIAL Lack of recreation program for youth/unattended youth. 21 ENVIRONMENT: SOCIAL Absentee landlords. 31 ENVIRONMENT: SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT: SOCIAL TOTAL 32 GOVERNMENT No backup trsllh plckup (Monday Holiday). 10 LAND USE: COMMERCIAL Weak commerce strip of Brnwnboro Rmd. 11 LAND USE: COMMERCIAL Inconaletent /unfocused commercial development on Frankfort Avenue. 12 LAND USE: COMMERCIAL Lack of restsuranta. 16 LAND USE: COMMERCIAL Undesirable busineaa. 29 LAND USE: COMMERCIAL Dangerous bar- LAND USE: COMMERCIAL TOTAL 9 LAND USE: INDUSTRIAL Proximity to indumtry. IS LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL Potential for high denmity development. 39 LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL Overly dense remidentid use. LAND VSP RESIDENTIAL TOTAL 89 PARKING Lack of off-street puking. 24 PARKING Lack of on-mtreet parking on Frankfort Avenue. 28 PARKING Tight parking due to apartments. PARKING TOTAL 8 TRANSPORTATlON Inconvenience of the railroad. 13 TRANSPORTATION New Main Street not developed properly. 11 TRANSPORTATION Improper alley ume between Peterson and Ewing Avenues. 18 TRANSPORTATION Poor alley eight lines. 20 TRANSPORTATION Heavy traffic on residential streets. 28 TRANSPORTATION 28 TRANSPORTATION Sidewalks in diarepalr, lack of sidewalks and curbs. 36 TRANSPORTATION Dangerous intersection Payne St. and Ewing Ave. -Also Pope St. and Frank 39 TRANSPORTATION Handicap aecessibllity. 31 TRANSPORTATION Poor Bum shelter maintenance. TRANSPORTATION TOTAL 4 UTILITIES T i I i 1 i ..~v l~mrelectric aervice from L.G and E. 30 UTILITIES Need for more street lighte. 38 UTILITIES Overhead utilities. UTILITIES TOTAL QUESTION :WHAT ARE THE NEGATIVE FEATURES OF THE CLIFTON NEIGHBORHOOD .

Trash left in alleys streets and sidewalk-.

High crime rate (at night). Leash laws and noise ordinance are not observed (dogs). Repeat offenders remain on the streets. Lack of curfew for teenagers in the area Leek of neighborhood identity to outsidera. 26 ENVIRONMENT: SOCIAL Lack of entertainment for teenagers. J 28 ENVIRONMENT. SOCIAL No block watch. ENVIRONMENT: SOCIAL TOTAL L 21 GOVERNMENT Poor representation from City and County workers in the ares % 9 LAND USE: GENERAL Poor land use. underdeveloped land /use. ;$ 23 LAND USE: GENERAL Lack of a community center. 7 LAND USE: GENERAL TOTAL 1 LAND USE: COMMERCIAL No comparable groceries in the neghborhood/auperstore. J 27 LAND USE: COMMERCIAL No gmd restaurantn in the area. 29 LAND USE: COMMERCIAL Auto repair on Frankfort Avenue and Pope Street. 32 LAND USE: COMMERCIAL H Unappealing major commerchl area (Kroger complex - - "dirty Kroger"). I 5 LAND USE: COMMERCIAL TOTAL r n 24 LAND USE: PARKS Ineffective use of park lands. 6 LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL High number of apartments on Frankfort Avenue. 7 3 TRANSPORTATION Limited access to Cherokee Park. - 6 TRANSPORTATION . Lack of adherence to crneawalkn by motorists. J I TRANSPORTATION Conditions of aidewalka and tree limb. blocking nidewalks. . 16 TRANSPORTATION Lack of good pedeetrian feeder routes to main commercial area on Browneb 3 16 TRANSPORTATION Motorists Present a hazard to children in the neighborhood. 17 TRANSPORTATION Need for sidewalks on Brownebom Road and State Street. 0 26 TRANSPORTATION Lack of malnt. of sidewalk along Brownsborn Rd. between Coral and Clifton 30 TRANSPORTATION Poor emergency accesa on Keata and other streeta due to the railmad track 31 TRANSPORTATION Condition of some of the alleys. 3. TRANSPORTATION TOTAL L?." 20 UTILITIES Need improved street lighting. -0Z-I 0 3 QUESTION :WHAT ARE THE NEGATIVE FEATURES OF THE CLIFTON NEIGHBORHOOD .

Vandalism - - property, cars. Doga, eate not kept in. Difficulty establishing a Block Watch 180% too hlgh ).

Police not viaible (don't walk the beat). "Milly's Place" - - mugh bar, crime - - clientele. DAY store - - appearance looka junky.

Not enough play areas (klds). 16 LAND USE: PARKS Need better play equipment in Bingham Park. LAND USE: PARKS TOTAL 4 LAND USE : RES. Abandoned , under maintained houses (Toll House). 9 PARKING Inadequate parklng - - apartments not providing. 3 TRANSPORTATION Speeding along side street., Frankfort Avenue. Brownsboro Rosd. 8 TRANSPORTATION Acceesiblity - - curb cuta stores (wheelchairs). 10 TRANSPORTATION No sidewalks on some dde streets, not lnalntsined .** 13 TRANSPORTATION Buzzers.Clifton and Frankfort , tm loud, cannot hear traffic. TRANSPORTATION TOTAL 8 UTILITIES Inadequate street lighta.

I = Footnote : **Streeta listed include N. Clifton, Sycamore , Brownsborn . S. Jane . state, ...... Lrrc< APPENDIX IV LETTERS AND MEETING NOTICES JEFFERSON COUNTY, KENTUCKY , ... ~VEYI. SLOANE. M.D. PHYSICAL AND E,hr'VIRONMENTfi SERVICES EVELYN L WALDROP County JucigeiExecutlve Cab~netDlrector LOUISVILLEAND JEFFERSONCOUNTY ERNEST E. ALLEN PLANNING COMMISSION PAUL A. BERGMANN. AICP. AIA Chlei Adrn~n~stratlveOnlcer Commlsslon Director

; November 3, 1988

Dear Clifton Area Business Person, The Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission is developing a neighborhood plan for the Clifton neighborhood. This plan will address land use and zoning, transportation and other physical issues facing the area. Our first public meeting on the neighborhood plan will be November 10, 1988 at 7:30 P.M. in the Food Ser- vices Building of the Kentucky School for the Blind, 1867 Frankfort Avenue. We would appreciate your help in posting the attached notice about the meeting in a prominent location in your establishment. Your attendance is also encouraged. The neighborhood plan is being developed with the help of an area resident Task Force. Involvement of area business persons is needed on the Task Force to balance the concerns of residents with the needs of businesses in the area. If you are interested in serving on the Task Force submit your name and the name of the business you represent at the public meeting or to Ed Mellett care.of the Louis- ville and Jefferson County Planning Commission.

A meeting of business owners and their representatives will be set up during the plan's development. You will be notified of the time and location. Sincerely,

Edwin W. Mellett Planner I1

FISCAL COURT BLDG. .ROOM 900 LOUISVILLE. KENTUCKY 40202 (502) 625-6230

An Equal Opporlun~tyEmployer IV- 1 CLIFTON NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC MEETING

DATE: NOVEMBER 10, 1988 AT 7:30 P.M. LOCATION: KENTUCKY SCHOOL FOR THE BLIND, FOOD SERVICES BUILDING, 1867 FRANKFORT AVENUE.

PURPOSE: TO IDENTIFY ASSETS AND PROBLEMS OF THE CLIFTON NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS INFORMATION WILL BE USED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CLIFTON NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY THE STAFF OF THE LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CALL 625-6230 CLIliTON NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC MEETING

DATE: THURSDAY. NOVEMBER 10. 1988 AT 7:30 P.M. LOCATION: KENTUCKY SCHOOL FOR THE BLJND. FOOD SERVICES BUILDING. 1867 FRANKFORT AVENUE. PURPOSE: TO IDENTIFY ASSETS AND PROBLEMS OF THE CLIFTON NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS INFORMATION WILL BE USED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CUFTON NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY THE STAFF OF THE LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WE0 SHOULD AlTEND?

PERSONS WHO HAVE PROBLEMS REGARDING LAND USE AND ZONING. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS. NEIGHBORHOOD FACILITIES OR TRANSPORTATION AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM ADDRESSED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. PERSONS WHO WANT TO EMPHASIZE POSITIVE ASPECTS OF THEIR NElGHBORHOOOD FOR PkOTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. ANYONE WHO IS INTERESTED IN HOW THE NElGHBORHOOD PIAN PROCESS WILL WORK FOR THE CLIFTON NEIGHBORHOOD.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CALL 625-6230

LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Physical and Enrironmental Serricer Cabinet Clifton Neighborhood

Traffic Study

Department of.Public Works/Englneering I City of Louisville. Kentucky

January 1989 City of Louisville JERRY E. ABRAMSON - -~ WILLIAM E HERRON MAYOR Room 216 City Hall Louisville, KY 40202-2771 DIRECTOR (502) 625-3111 January 20, 1989

Mr. Dave Hulefeld Chief Transportation Planner Louisville/Jefferson County Planning Commission 900 Fiscal Court Building Louisville, KY 40202 Re: Clifton Neighborhood Plan Dear Mr. Hulefeld: This is in response to your request dated Nov. 22, 1988, to provide information and analysis necessary for the Transportation Section of the Clifton Neighborhood Plan. We performed a level of service analysis for the following intersections:

This analysis was performed using the Highway Capacity Software (HCS). This software was developed by the Federal Highway Administration to assist users with applications of the procedures explained'in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (1985 HCM). We have attached a summary of our findings for these intersections and the computer print-outs for the analysis of each intersection (attachment I). We also performed an accident study for the entire Clifton neighborhood. The accident data for this study was obtained from the Louisville Police Departments Info Center/l Query System. We have attached a summary of our findings for this study and the computer print-outs which contain this data (attachment 2). We have also attached a code sheet which contains a guide to interpreting these computer reports.

An Equal Opponunrty Employer IV-5 Mr. Dave Hulefeld January 20, 1989 Page 2

Information concerning the street conditions, pavement data and curb heights is provided in attachment No. 3. This data was compiled using the City's Pavement Maintenance Management Program System. We are more than happy to discuss the details of the information provided and answer any questions you or your staff may have. Please provide us a copy of the plan as it becomes available. Sin~erely

Project Engineer pc: William E. Herron Brian Bobo, P.E. Pat Johnson Alderman Melissa Mershon Attachments

IV- 6 Cllfton Neighborhood Level of Service Analysis

The purpose of this analysis was to determine the level of service of (6) intersections in the Clifton neighborhood. 12) of these intersecticns are unsignalized and (4) are signalized. The results of our analysis are summarized below:

UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS The Frankfort/Pope and Ewing/Payne intersections are unsignalized intersections. The traffic volumes we used in our analysis of these intersections were the peak hour volumes. The geometric and lane usage data was gathered on field visits to each intersection. The following table summarizes the results of our analysis:

Unsignalized Major Mlnor Intersection Type Street Street L.0.S.

Frankfort & 4-~eg Frankfort N A Pope Pope-YL.B. C pope-* B . D

Ewlng & 3-~eg Ewing A Payne ~ayne-E.B. A

> SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS For our analysis of the signalized intersections, we also used the peak hour volumes. Geometric data was gathered on a field visit to each intersection. The time allocations we used in our analysis of these intersections were based on the current maximum cycle lengths and green times for each traffic signal. The following table summarizes our results:

LOS Signalized signal Cycle BY Int. Int. Intersection Type Length Approach App. Delay LOS EB F Brownsboro & Act. 5 9 WB D 68.8 F Ewlng NB C SB B

Brownsboro & Act. 7 8 WB D 27.9 D Mellwood NB D SB B EB B *Frankfort & Seml- 6 4 WB B 21.2 C Ewlng Act. NB C SB F EB B Frankfort & Semi- 80 WB C 13.9 B Mellwood Act. NB B

* There is additional delay associated with this intersection due to the presence of an exclusive pedestrian phase for the Kentucky School for the Blind. Further delays may also occur because of the L & N railroad crossing on the southbou~ld Ewing approach. Both of these delays are extremely variable in nature.

IV- 8 Clifton Neighborhood Accident Study

The purpose of this accident study was to determine the location, and frequency of accidents in the Clifton Neighborhood for the last (2) years. The data presented below shows the locations where (10) or more accidents occurred in 1987 and 1988. Accidents rates were then calculated for these locations and are also included in the following accident summary:

Brownsboro & Jane

* The accident rate is defined as the ratio of a million vehicle accidents to the annual average daily traffic and is expressed as follows:

Accident Rate s Number of Annual Accidents x 10' A.D.T. x 365

** There are no traffic volumes currently available for this intersection. JEFFERSON COUNTY. KENTUCKY HARVEY I SLOANE M D PHYSIGAL ASD ENT'IROIGMENTAL SERVICES EVELYN L WALDROP County Juu~eIExecutlve Cab~nelD~reclor LOUISVILLEAND JEFFERSONCOUNTY ERNEST E ALLEN PLANNINGCOMMISSION PAUL A BERGMANN. AICP. AIA Chlel Adm~n~slral~veOfllcer Cornrn~ss~onDorenor

January 31, 1989

Mark R. Nouri Project Engineer City of Louisville Department of Public Works Room 216, City Hall Louisville, Kentucky 40202 .. . Dear Mr. Nouri, I have been reviewing the information that you and Pat Johnson provided our office and have a question regarding one of the LoS interpretations for an unsignalized intersection. The Pope Street and Frankfort Avenue intersection shows under the heading "Minor Street" Pope Street as "En eastbound and "W" westbound. These should be north and south I believe, and would like you to check to see which should be labeled accordingly. Second, we would like your office to go ahead on the preparation of suggested improvements for the six high accident locations identified by your analysis. We have meetings scheduled for February 13, 1989 and February 27, 1989 that we would like to have this information available for and,if possible,have you or Pat Johnson attend the meeting where the recommendations are discussed to answer questions from the Task Force. Meetings are held in the Food Services Building of the Kentucky School for the Blind (1867 Frank- fort Avenue) at 7:00 P.M. Please let me know if this request presents a problem for your office. Sincerely,

Edwin W. Mellett

FISCAL COURT BLDG. .ROOM 900 LOUISVILLE. KENTUCKY 40202 (502) 625-6230

An Equal Opporlun~lyEmployer IV- 10 MEMORANDUM

TO: Ed Mellet Louisville-Jefferson Co. Planning Commission FROM: Rob Kanzler DL Department of Housing & Urban Development DATE: January 10, 1989 RE: Clifton area CDBG Projects Funded from 1980-88

The only project funded during this period is: Clifton Heights Sidewalk 88B-03G $50,000 Extension of stair case from Vernon Avenue to Brownsboro Road and new sidewalks in low/mod census blocks. M~LoD.BRYANT

SECRETARY

AN0 COMM15510NEROFHIGHWAYS P. 0. BOX 37090 LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY 40233 DISTRICT FIVE March 6, 1989

U)UISVILLE AirC 1iFTEr:SGN COUN@ &PlUlW KlMM133K34, Louisville and Jefferson County Planning & Zoning Fiscal Court Building .- Room 900 Louisville, Kentucky 40202 ATTN: Ed Mellett RE: Jefferson County 1-64 @ Grinstead Drive Interchange Ewing Avenue Approach Dear Mr. Mellett: Enclosed is the control of acces's limits. Please note the Ewing Avenue approach. If there are any questions, please feel free to contact this office. Respectfully submitted,

Wade G. Campbell Planning Engineer Branch Manager Enclosure

WGC/ dgp

"AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER M/FlW IV- 12 ~. ,, ,.1 !.- ' --.\ . 1: ,, b': ,.. . , ~. .! \, , .> ;.' \.rr, ,, , : > .-.' JEFFERSON COUh7TY. KENTUCKY HARVEY I. SLOANE,M.D. PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES EVELYN L. WALDROP County JuugelExecut~ve Cab~nelD~rector LOUISVILLEAND JEFFERSONCOUNTY ERNEST E ALLEN PLANNINGCOMMISSION PAUL A. BERGMANN,AICP. AIA Ch,el Admlntstratwe Otfl~~r Commiu~onDirector

Memo To: Jim Thorne

From: Ed Mellett c>,-c

Date : March 8, 1989 Re: Traffic counts/estimates for possible extension of Ewing Avenue

I have marked on the attached map the locations where I would like to have before and after estimates of traffic prepared for the extension of Ewing Avenue. I assume some of the eastbound traffic on Brownsboro Road, Frankfort Avenue and Payne Street west of Ewinq Avenue divert to this interchange and that flows on Grinstead east of - the Ewing extension and Peterson Avenue will be reduced. Some of the sites may not be necessary. A single count would probably be adequate for Ewinq Avenue north of Frankfort Avenue and for Peterson Avenue. If you have questions call me at 625-5177. I would like these as soon as possible. Let me know how long that will be. Thanks. Mellet

FISCAL COURT BLDG ROOM 900~ ~ LOUISVILLE.KENTUCKY 40202 (502) 625-6230 An Equal Opporluntly Employer IV- 13 Sheet A CRESCENT HILL >n-7 , ~,o .* *,-. NEIGHBORHOOD -. - --~ ...... - .... C~~.~ IV-14 ...... * ~ -~ . Page 3 EAST END News and features about your area of Jefferson County

MARCH 8, 1989 ) I New Clifton plan calls for sidewalks, fixmup, rezoning Group's plan to be discussed at residents' meeting Monday 1 By GAYLE CUTLER by the Loulsvllle Board of Alder- Staff Wrlter men, at the request of 1st Ward Aldennan el' Mershon, who A neighborhood group looking represents Cllfton. for ways to help Clifton is draft- This will be the last public ing a long-range plan calling lor meeting before the final plan is new sidewalks, massive rezoning drafted. In May Ule group will and a cleanup and fip pro- hold another public meeting to gram. present the plan, which the group The 14-member group -which then will present to the aldennen. includes an architect, landscape If the aldermen approve It, the designer, real-state agent and plan wtll mean greater zoning two bllndservices employees - protection and neighborhood con- plans to present Its initial recom- trol by residents, said Plannlng mendations at a 1:30 p.m public meeting Monday in the food-serv- Commission planner Ed Melletf a ice building at the Kentucky city government representative School for the Blind. 1867 pnk- on the committee. fort Ave. Mellett said city officials would use the plan in conjunction with Pam Vetter, president of the the county comprehensive plan. Clifton Community Council and a in deciding neighborhood issues member of the neighborhood such as zoning or traffic changes. plan committee, is excited about Clifton, on steep bluffs between Lhe project Butchertown and Crescent Hill, is "A neighborhood plan is our way to express to the city what bounded by Brownsboro Road, our residents want. It's already Ewing Avenue, Interstate 64 and Mellwood Avenue. helped our community council Built largely as a middle-class cus on what needs to be done," neighborhood between 1885 and said Vetter, of Waverly Court. 1910. Clifton has many narrow, The group has been working on steep streets, which make for the recommendations since Nc- vernber, when the members were traffic and parking problems. appointed bv Mayor Jern Ab- Mellen said. ramson. See CLIFTON The study was commissioned Page 2, col. 1

-, . . . IV-15 ~ .. ,. -...... ~- ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ Clifton area plan topic of meeting Continued from Page One Slelien and Verter also said the neighborhood has unusual housing and traffic problems because of its many visually impaired residents. About 7 percent of Clifton's residents - nearly 200 people - are visually impaired, they said, and hundreds of others attend or work at the School for the Blind and American Printing House for the Blind, both on Frankfort Avenue. and Recording for the Bllnd Inc.. on Haldeman Avenue. The task-force recommendations were formulated with help from the Planning Commission, Landmarks Commission and city nei@borhood services and public works departments. The recommendations include: B Replacing sidewalks in disrepair and constructing new ones wherever they don't exist - ail accesible by wheelchair. W Widening some streets, making some one-way, and restricting parking in some locations to one side of me bv stan ~1stsnr hnrn the street At least half of Clifton's tersections with bad traffic flow, with local realdte agents an(' . roads are too narrow to accommck poor visibility or other problems. Office of Economic Developm date Weway traffic and curb park- Intersections cited include Payne m~~~~~~~~~ the leasing of v;- in& Mellett sald. The task force has Street and EMJUAvenue: not finallzed this recommendation; cant commercial buildings, by work- it will seek residents' opinions on and Mellwood avenues: adBrowns- i~ wth local realestate agents and Monday. boro Road and Jane Sbeet the ecanomlc development office. W Repairing audio signaling Wfianglng the zoning of about Organizing neighborhood activi- equipment that lets visually im- 1.000 of the 1.306 lots in the neigh- ties for youths. especially at Bin& paired pedestrians know when they borhood. Residential zoning that ham Park, off Brownsboro Road. may safely cross at intersections. pennits substantially hlgher densi- and seeking the development of The neighborhood has had the de- ties than exist would be down-zoned state-owned property along Inter- vices for years, but some don't to remt true densities. Alsa C-2 state 64 for park space that would work. commercial properties would be re- link the neighborhood and Cherokee zoned C-1, to prevent "nuisance" Park W Restricting heavy-truck baffle businese such as rowdy bars, aub to Mellwood, Frankfort and EWng avenues. Brownsboro Road and Er: gf,zElzg!ZiE. members or the committee Payne Stmt. RatrlcUng truck tral- hood althout a publlc hearing. fic on State Sbeet betareen Frank- Jahn Bee- Sycamore Ave- fort Avenue and Braamsboro Road ~Encouraglngthe establlshrnent nue; Carnahan. Ave to the Prlnting House for the Bllnd. of more '7able+enrlcem restaurants nue; mcs Cunninsham F~~~~~~ Requdndlng improvemenb at In- in the by worldQ Avenue; Jeff Fremln, Arlington Avc nue; Bob Hoaard. Burning Bwh Road; Michael Koepper, Sycamore Awnue; Ella McCoy, Jane Street Grow has ser \ior skaters Robert Novak. at Cherokee Road; Steve Rowhnd, Bellalre Avenue: hitting the ice once again Adam Rushlva~.Pope Street; El4-- kth Sehaal. Crestwood Avenue, Sexton. Angora CouR and Jodnb~e Continued from Page One side manner that inspires the senior Weeter, Avenue, skater for three years. citizens. Particfpants are not required to "Our coaches haw such a won- take lessons or "do anything spe- derful way of thinking you can do cial," Riedley said. "They do it for more than whet vou can. So you Neighborhoods the enjoyment and to skate at thelr strive and yor - WE very ="-16 . .- ... ~,.. fortunate to ha< ...:, ,nstlurtors." CLIFTON NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC MEETING

DATE: MARCH 13, 1989 AT 7:30 P.M. LOCATION: KENTUCKY SCHOOL FOR THE BLIND, FOOD SERVICES BUILDING, 1867 FRANKFORT AVENUE.

PURPOSE: PRESENTATION OF THE DRAFT LAND USE. ZONING AND TRANSPORTATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RIE CDTON NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. COUMENTS RECEIVED AT THIS MEETMG WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE FINAL DRAFT OF THE PLAN. ' THE PIAN HlU BE PRESENTED AT A THIRD PUBLIC KEERNG BEFORE IT IS ADOPTED.

FOR YORE INFORMATION CALL 625-6230

LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Physical and Emvironmental Services Cabinet IV-17 Hentuckiana Regional Planning and Development Agency I KlPDA 914 East Broadway Loutsv~lle,Kentucky 40204 5021589-4406

March 17, 1989 KENTUCKY MEMBER COUNTIES Mr. Ed Mellett BULLllT Louisville-Jefferson County Planning Commission Fiscal Court Building, Room 900 KO~BVIUE 41.~:!.I - :: ..;.r. ;ouNn Louisville, KY 40202 &mmG raw- HENRY -- Dear Ed: .- The enclosed material is in response to your letter JEFFERSON of March 8 regarding the proposed extension of Ewing Avenue to Grinstead Drive. As requested, estimated 1989 average daily traffic volumes for the existing and proposed conditions OLDWM are provided at the specified locations. The existing condition traffic volumes were based on available count information. The proposed condition volumes CBY were estimated by manually redistributing locally-generated and through traffic in the area. If you have any questions regarding this information, SPENCER please advise. Sincerely,

Jim Thorne, P.E. Transportation Director INDIANA MEMBER JT/HT/mk COUNTIES Enclosure

CURK cc: Harold Tull (2)

EQUAL OPPORTUNlTi EMPLOYER IV-18 EWING AWEXlWSION TRAFFIC VOLUME CDMPRRISON

/ ' REFmma 1989 ------NUMBER ...... mTION WSTING BEUWSXRQ ROAD E of Eking Avenue 20,000 W of Ewing Avenue 20,700

FRANKFORT Amm E of Peterson Avenue 14,100 E of Ewing Avenue 12,500 W of Ewing Avenue 9,100

PAYN'E SElEET W of Ewing Avenue N/A

CAINSTEAD AVENUE W of Galt Avenue N/ A W of Peterson Avenue 11,500 W of EWing Avenue 11,500

EWING AVmm S of Brwnstoro Rmd 5,700 N of Frankfort Avenue 3,900 S of Frankfort Avenue 3,400 S of Payne Street 900 N of Grinstead Avenue ---

PFWSON AVENUE S of Frankfort Avenue 1,600 N of Grinstad Drive N/A

JEFFERSON COUNTY, KENTUCKY HARVEY l SLOANE M D PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES EVELYN L WALDROP County JuugelExecut~ve Cablnel D~reclor LOUISVILLEAND JEFFERSONCOUNTY ERNEST E ALLEN PLANNING~OMM~SSION PAUL A BERGMANN AlCP AIA Chief Adm~n~slralweOWlcer Commlsslon Director

MEMO

TO : Brian Bobo, P.E. FROM : Dave ~ulefeld3+' DATE : April 3, 1989 RE: Ewing Avenue

In the course of work on the Clifton neighborhood plan, construction of the unbuilt portion of Ewing Avenue (north of Grinstead Drive) was raised as an alternative. The Clifton Neighborhood Plan Task. Force has discussed this improvement and considers it desirable for several reasons: it would facilitate access to 1-64 from the Clifton area, it would resolve problems due to cars cutting through the alley that parallels Frankfort Avenue between Ewing and Peter- son, it would improve pedestrian access to Cherokee Park. Because Ewing is the boundary of Crescent Hill and Clifton neighborhoods, we raised this topic with representatives of the Crescent Hill Community Council. Crescent Hill Community Council is planning to have the unbuilt portion of Ewing Avenue closed. This would allow consolidation of the property owned by Crescent Hill Community Council on either side of the Ewing right-of-way, and enhance the site's viability as an environmental education area. It appears that this is a potentially controversial subject. ~efore further discussion between the two neighborhood groups occurs, I would like to be certain that the construction of Ewing Avenue through to Grinstead Drive is a feasible project. Accordingly, I am requesting your assistance in answering the following questions: - Would an extension of Ewing in the existing right-of-way be feasible from a safety perspective? The curve in Grinstead Drive raises questions about safety for cars turning left on to Ewing Avenue. - Is a new link between Grinstead and Brownsboro Road desirable? Would it attract a large number of trucks and result in problems for adjacent residences?

FISCAL COURT BLDG ROOM 900 LOUISVILLE. KENTUCKY 40202 (502) 625.6230

An Equal Opporlun~tvEmployer IV-21 Bobo Memo April 3, 1989 Page 2

- Because of the uneven terrain north of Grinstead Drive, would this project be cost-prohibitive? Would there be impacts or intrusion on the Clays Pond scenic easement? Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. Some response to these questions during the week of April 10th is desirable. The next Clifton Task Force meeting is April 17th, if your analysis indicates that this project is feasible, a sub-committee of Clifton and Crescent Hill residents will be appointed by that time to formulate a mutually acceptable recommendation. Please contact Ed Mellett or me if you have any questions. cc: Alderman Mershon Paul Bergmann Ed Mellett t

Bobo 4/3/89 CLIFTN s L t -,!:uNrv City of Louisville W,!!NING- COMMlSSU]N JERRY E. ABRAMSON DEPARTMENTOF PUBLIGWORKS WILLIAM E HERRON MAYOR Room 216 Clty Hall Loulsvllle, KY 40202 2771 DIRECTOR (502) 625-3111

April 11, 1989

Ms. Frances A. Ratterman 163 N. Jane street Louisville, KY 40206 Dear Ms. Ratterman: The Jefferson County Planning Commission is conducting a comprehensive transportation study for your neighborhood. I Your concerns regarding Jane Street traffic flow is discussed ~ in that plan and alternatives are being studied. I have I referred your suggestions to the Planning Commission staff for their consideration and response. Your suggestion to install a stop sign at the entrance/exitway of the apartment complex should be directed to the property owner. It is outside of the City's jurisdiction to control traffic within private property. However,,Ordinance No. 71.13 states It.. . on entering the roadway from the alley, driveway or building, the operator shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching on that roadway". We thank you for your concerns regarding traffic safety in the City. S igcerely ,

hark 'B. '~ouri,P.E. Project Engineer

pc: William E. Herron ioboP.E.

An Equal Opporlun~lyEmployer IV-23 - TI I City of Louisville rar wqE Dept of Public Safety fJ-' J ;". :!lBj ;-:5 \i :. ..;., , 601 1. Jefferson Street ;-1 \ I I I !I: , -.-._. Louisville, Kentuoky 4@2& LJ I,a,?. ry, , ; . \¶89

Frmr Flmnois A httermn fi !,; :: :-% : ;.: :,: :-. :: c 163 N. Jane Street ;,;>..,-,,,. .<, !;i -1' Louisville, bntucky 40206 (502) 895-6328

Sir

I heard mora that the blook of Jane Street between Sycamore and Brewnsboro Road would be made one way. I personally, as a resident of this block, would pefer a two my street, but with controlled speed. A controlled sped is an alien oonoept to the drivers using Jane Street as a through street.

Eaemr, if one nay it must bs, I believe one my south would be preferable to one way north. Cars going north, dam the two hills, would ruddenly. at the bottom of a blind hill, be up againat two way traf fic.

If I, for instance, would want to go east on h-ankfort Avo, I would have to go north on Jane, pssed the dangerous entrance to the aprtment ocmplex, pssed the line of traffic attempting to get to the bnk drim up wind- and passed the apseders ooming out of the shopping center parking lot. Then, of oourse, the hasael of getting out ento Brmboro Road. Then around the block to Linp and south to Rankfort Ave.

If the street were one way south, at the top of the upper hill, the driver6 would ham a ohoice of east or west on Syomore, er to prooeed south to Zrankfcrt Ave.

Another item: There should be painted, on the pavenent at the entranae to the apartment omplex, the word "STOP'. The oonorete mll around the extranoe make8 this entrance-exit a blind and dargerour spet. I believe f drivers exiting tb ~prtmentpremises rhould stop before bursting into the fast tmffio on Jam Street.

Thank you. Anson sald the warehouse's steel and cement-block exterior will match his existing buildins but the Frankfort Avenue slde, built a few feet back from the sidewalk, wlll be covered with deconttlve cement blocks. The project also will Include new sidewalks and shrubbery in a low planter bullt of the same block "We'll have a lot of nlce detail in the planter and the sidewalk. And with the setback off Mellwood, it opens up the whole comer," Anson ald. Anson located his buslness next to the old distillery slte in 1977. He Industrial warehouse to 1 said he was aware of some resldents' objections when an older. larger distillery building on the site

be built in Butchertown .I was- razed~~~ - in 1985. He said he considered renovatrng the smaller brick By JOSEPH KREBS IS scarce on the street. 1 buildina that remained, but the idea Special Writer "I've talked lo both John and wasn't practical. The old has made way for the Eddie Anson." he said. "They have "I had two different archltecb new on the corner of Frankfort and always treated me good." He had no study the project. Tbe conversion Mellwood avenues. Obje~lio~to the warehouse. cost was prohlbltlve." he said. And. Once the site or two brick-and. Bea Campbeti lives a few doon he sald, the smaller building "didn't stone distlllery warehouses, one dal. east of the site on Frankfort ~ve. have the character of the older ing back to 1893, the corner now nue. Although she said she would building." Demolition began in Feb holds a mound of earth and a fresh have preferred for the property to Nary. concrete foundallon lor a modern be developed as a restaurant, of. Some residents still regret the 10s steei-andiement warehouse. fices or a shopping center, she of the older five-story building. John Anson, presldenl of Anson didn't object to the warehouse. "11.11 Joanne Weeter. an at-large mem- Machine and Manufacturing Co. be better than looking at thal old ber of the Clifton Community Coun- next to the dlsrlllery site, bought the disllllery building wilh all [he cil and research coordinator for the Proper0 in July 1987 and hopes to broken windows." she said. Loubville Landmarks Cornml~~ion. have the warehouse finished in AU- lives a few blocks from the site. gust. 1 Considering the residential nature Awn plam to lease the 30.000- of the streets just east of Anson's Sware-foot bulldtng to other busl- site, she mid both distlllery bulld- 3 for Industrial storage. but he in& should have been converted to o tenants yet. residentlal use. But she agreed that .die bulldlng whlch will be 188 the smaller bullding had less hlstori- feet wlde and 175 feet deep, will be cal value, and she acknowledged - Set back more than 100 feet from that the property's zonlng - for Mellwood Avenue to allow semi- manufacturing - meant that there trailer trucks to enter from that was little the resldenb could do. But dlrectlon. There wlll be no en- she'd like to see the Industry in the hnCes on Frankfort Avenue. area "contained along Mellwood." to Amn sald the warehouse's steel protect the residential and historica! and eement.block exterior will character of Frankfort Avenue. Pam Vetter, president of the CIif- ton~CornmunityCouncll, also llves a few blocks away. Vetter said the councll. took no formal stand on Anson's building plans. She sald from what the council 1 could determlne from nearby resldents, "Anson has been a good neighbor to them. They have a good commercial-residential relationshlp 1 with him." She said there was no opposltlon to his plans. Eddie Anson, vice presldent of the firm and John Anson's brother, sald the company works at maintaining the relationshlp. He sald he and hls brother talk to resldents and try to work with them. John Bennett, of North Willlam Street, shares a narrow alley wilh the flrm. He sald the Ansons let hlm park plckup trucks and small trall- ers on their property when parking

-Pago 6 NEIGHBORHOODS/East End, MAY 24, liW

"Happenings" tells about the Tuesday - exercise at 10:30 people and events making news a.m.. current events discussion at 11 each week in this area. Items for Meeting set a.m. and bingo at 120 p.m. publication should be sent to Next Wednesday - exercise at Neighborhoods Happenin s. The on Clifton plan 10:30 a.m.. arts and crafts at 11 COurierJournal. 525 W. 8roedway. a.m.. quiz games at 11 a.m. and Louisville, Ky. 40202. Or call Pat The Loulsville-Jefferson Coun- group games at 1:30 p.m.' O'COnnor at 5824167. The dead- ty Planning Commission will For a complete list of activities, line to receive items is noon hold a meetlng to hear com- call the center at 459-4887. Thursday of the week before pub ments on the Cliiton Neighbor- Hlghbndr Communlly Minis- lication. hood Plan at 7:30 p.m. June 1at Bies Outrsach Progpm for Older the Kentucky School lor the Penons offers dally lunches and By PAT O'CONNOR Blind's Food Services Building activilie$ at Deer Park Baptist 1867 Frankfort Ave. The com- Church, 1733 Bardstown Road. mission will present the rwised Fw lunch rebewetions or a complete People land-use zoning and hmsporta- list of pcograms, call 459-7676 be- tion plan with recommendations Ween 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. 0alaIia T. Bnetz. of Graham-- - The program will not operate ~oad,recetvedme Ojtstandlng pub- for the CUhon nelgbborhood. Monday because of MemMial Day. lo hbrary Sewtce Award frm the Comments will be Included ~n a Activities during the coming Kentucky hbrary Associat~onfor her report to Ule Board of Alder- week include: work as a Kentuckians Regional men For more idonnation, call Tomorrow - nutrition education Librarian for the Kentuckv De~art- the Pla~ingCommission at 625 qent of Libraries and ~rihive's. at 11 a.m. e is the former director of the 6230. Friday - program. on first aid at ~ullittCounty Library System, a 11 a.m. past referenw librarian at the Louls- Tuesday - exercise at 11 am. vilie Free Public Library and the Free wansportation. assistance librarian at General Electric's Appli- Schools in completing insurance and medical ance Park. forms and other activities for peo- Christ Church United Memod- ple living in the Highlands also are Dora Fehler, of Louisville, cele is1 Preschool and Kindamarten is ,,nard ,+ ma n..c..--~-- CLIFTON NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PUBLIC MEETING

DATE: THURSDAY JUNE 1, 1989 AT 7:30 P.M. LOCATION: KENTUCKY SCHOOL FOR THE BLIND, FOOD SERVICES BUILDING, 1867 FRANKFORT AVENUE.

PURPOSE: PRESENTATION OF THE REVISED LAND USE, ZONING AND TRANSPORTATION RECOmNDATIONS FOR THE CLfFTON NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. COMMENTS RECEIVED AT THIS MEETING WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO A PUBLISHED REPORT THAT 'RILL BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN FOR ADOPTION.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CALL 625-6230 Kentuckians Regional Planning and Development Agency

KlPDA 914 East Broadway Lou~sv~lle,Kentucky 40204 5021589-4406

June 1989 KENTUCKY 8, MEMBER COUNTIES

Mr. Ed Mellett Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission Fiscal Court Bldg. Room 900 HENRY Louisville, KY 40202 Dear Mr. Mellett:

Enclosed is your map of the Clifton neighborhood with available updated and additional traffic counts. I hope this information is adequate.

OLDHAM Sincerely,

Maria Kinser

SPENCER Enclosure

TRLMBLE

INDIANA MEMBER COUNTIES

CLARK

FLOYD

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER IV-29 Adjusted Daily Traffic Counts

8666 Average Daily Traffic Year Of Survey

Location of Traffic Counts

DONALD A. LORENZ 12211 Old Shelbyville Rd. Louisville. KY 40243 (502) 244-1755 1 .?:: 1.7 ,,.-~.;$i] June 15, 1989 &)&$3j~wFp, :, r:. 5 . . ,I.yy,9 I I. .:, co~~~v .. ~> . ,i:-.Ut diirv 1 9 jYd3 '. '. ,.\,,*\$,$b9@1 Paul Bergmann 4WL* G,,i+,~:~U a,'. Executive Director Louisville and Jef fersom .+'. County Planning Commission 900 Fiscal Court Building Louisville, KY 40202 Dear Mr. Bergmann: I had an opportunity to review the June 1, 1989 draft of the Clifton Neighborhood plan recently. On page 25 we have a piece of property listed located at 181 N. Bellaire indicated as item 9 on this map. This is proposed to be changedfrom R-6 to R-5. We strongly oppose this proposed change. This property is presently being utilized as a duplex and any attempt to change the zoning on this would greatly diminish the property values. Please keep me advlsed as to when the public hearing on this proposal will be made so we can make our comments - known to the entlre Planning Commission. Sincerely, v-.AL saf MEMORANDUM

CITY OF LOUISVILLE

August 1. 1989

TO: Catherine Ashabraner. Director Department of Neighborhood Services

FROM : Martin F. Heil. Jr., Fire Marshal LtA Division of Fire

SUBJECT CLIFTON NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN : --

The referenced material has been reviewed and the Fire Division has no comment.

We take this opportunity to commend you for your work in this area. The correlation between fire loss and adverse, or marginal, demographic attributes is irrefutable. We are confident this will prove to be the case with this project.

Martin F. Heil, Jr., Fire Marshal Division of Fire

skc cc: Russell Sanders, Chief Louisville Division Of Fire JEFFERSOX GOL7STY. KESTUGKY I HARVEY I SLOANE M D PHYSICAL AKD EN't'IROh-MENTAL SERVICES EVELYN L WALDROP Couvty JuugeiEaecuuve Cablnel D~rector LOUISVILLEAND JEPPERSONCOUNTY ERNEST E ALLEN PLLNNINGCOMMISSION PAUL A BERGMANN. AICP. AIA Cbef Adm#n#strativeOlfcer Comm#ss!onD~reclor

September 27, 1909

Martin F. Beil, Jr. Fire Marshall Division of Fire 1135 Jefferson Street Louisville, Kentucky 40203 Dear Mr. Heil, Thank you for your review of the draft Clifton Neighborhood Plan. Your comments will be included in the appendix to the report. Sincerely,

Edwin W. Mellett Planner I1 cc: Catherine Ashabraner Alderman Melissa Mershon Ben Post

An Equal Opportun~lyEmployer Louisville Gas and Electric Company ,"<-"-R.,Co

August 18, 1989

Mr. Ben Post Department of Neighborhood Services 200 South Seventh Street, Suite 200 Louisville, KY 40202

Dear Mr. Post:

We have reviewed the First Draft of the Clifton Neighborhood Plan and are in general agreement with its content.

Our engineers have advised me that we are presently performing conversion work in the Clifton area. Basically, we are changing the electric system from 4 KV to 12 KV, installing the transformers, installing new conductors and new animal protection devices around selected electrical equipment.

All of these measures should help to improve any service problems which our customers in the Clifton Neighborhood may currently be experiencing.

When the final report is issued, I would like a copy.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions. *29Sincerely, A George R. Siemens, Jr. Manager - Governmental ~rfairs

cc: Mr. D. Blakeman Mr. S. Logsdon JEFFERSON GOUSTY, KENTUCKY HARVEY I SLOANE M D PHYSIGAL ,4SD ENVIRON1*IENTAL SERVIGES EVELYN L WALDROP Cablnel D~reclor county JuugeiExecur~ve LOUISVILLEAND JEFFERSONCOUNTY ERNEST E ALLEN PLANNING GOMMISSION PAUL A BERGMANN AICP. AIA Ch,ef Aam1n8srraltveOfflcer Commlsslon D~rector

September 27, 1989

George R. Siemens, Jr. Manager Government Affairs Louisville Gas & Electric Company P. 0. Box 32020 Louisville, Kentucky 40232 Dear Mr. Siemens, Thank you for your review of the draft Clifton Neighborhood Plan. Your comments will be included in the appendix to the report. Sincerely,

Edwin W. Mellett Planner I1 cc: Catherine Ashabraner Alderman Melissa Mershon Ben Post

IV-38 FISCAL COURT BLDG. ROOM 900 LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY 40202 (502)625-6230

An Equal Opportun~lyEmployer City. of Louisville JERRY E. ABRAMSON DEPARTMENTOF PUBLIGWORKS WILLIAM E HERRON MAYOR Room 216 City Hall Louisville, KY 40202-2771 DIRECTOR (502) 625-311 1

August 22, 1989

TO: BEN POST, PLANNER DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES

FROM : GREG SINGLUST, TPANSPORTATION PLANNER 665 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

RZ: CLIFTON NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN

The Department of Public Works approves the draft as written, however, I would like to comment on several issues.

On page 120, Appearance, 12: f < Public Works already has a standi~gpolicy on bricks restaration which is overseen by our Roads Divisioll inspectors. Prcperty owners should notify this department whenever they spot in~proper asphalt repaving over an original brick road or alley way.

On page 125, d. Parking Limitations:

A work order was written on 7/12/89 to limit parking at the intersection of Biclcels Lane and Saunders Avenue.

cc: William E. Herron Brian J. Bobo, P.E. Catherine Ashabraner

IV-39 An Equal Opportunity Employer JEFFERSOX GOUSTIT,KENTGGKY HARVEY I SLOANE M D PHYSICAL ,LVD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVlGES EVELYN L WALDROP Counly JuugelE~ecul~ve Cabinet D~rector LOUISVILLEAND JEPPERSONGOUXTY I ERNEST E ALLEN PLANNING COMMISSION PAUL A BEAGMANN AlCP AIA ; Ch,ef Aam~n~stral~veOH~cer Commlss~onDnreclor ~

September 27, 1989

Greg Singlust, Transportation Planner Department of Public Works Room 216, City Hall Louisville, Kentucky 40202 RE: Clifton Neighborhood Plan Comments Dear Mr. Singlust, I Thank you for your comments regarding the Clifton Neighborhood Plan draft. The letter will be included in Appendix IV of the report and we will modify the text as follows: (page 120 revise to read) 12. Utilities should restore streets to their original condition (including brick streets) after work in the area as required by the Department of Public Works. Property owners should notify the Public Works Department whenever they spot improper asphalt repaving over a brick road or alley way. (page 125 add note) d. Parking Limitation On-street parking should be limited at the intersection of Bickels Lane and Saunders Avenue on both streets to allow turns. (A work order was written to limit parking at the intersection of Bickels Lane and Saunders Avenue on July 12, 1989). I am also enclosing a copy of the letter sent by Bruce Seigle of the Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District concerning the neighborhood plan. Parts 1 C and D refer to possible projects that would require the Public Works involvement. Would you please see to it that MSD's comments reach the responsible parties in your department.

IV-40 FISCAL COURT BLDG. .ROOM 900 LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY 40202 (502) 625-6230

An Equal Opportun~lyEmployer I

~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ - ~~ Singlust letter September 27, 1989 Page 2

Finally, William D. Mason's letter (attached) indicates that TARC has targeted an additional bus shelter for the Clifton neighborhood if a proper site can be identified. Can someone in your office identify an adequate site to TARC so that Clifton can take advantage of this offer.

Sincerely

Edwin W. Mellett Planner I1

Enclosures cc: Catherine Ashabraner Alderman Melissa Mershon Ben Post jn-^-& \:Jest Broadway u Louisv~lle.Kentucky 40203

August 22, 1989

Ms. Catherine Ashabraner Departmnt of Neighborhocd Services City of Louisville 200 South 7th Street, Suite 200 Louisville KY 40202-2719

Dear Ms. Ashabraner :

Thank you for the opportunity to respnd on the draft of the Clifton Neighborhood Plan. - I would like to conwent on the passage, "Bus shelters also improve the transit users safety and ccmfort. There are only three shelters in the CLifton neighborhood," on page 105. Given the large vol~of requests TAX receives for shelters, it is difficult to acc-ate each request. We attempt to place shelters at the heaviest boarding locations that still satisfy other considerations such as available level terrain, public right-of-way, zoning, width of sidewalks, etc.

The overall hilly terrain, narraw sidewalks, and residential nature of the Clifton area has limited potential shelter locations. We have targeted one location along with Public Works for consideration should the akme considerations be met.

Again, thank you. Should you have any questions, please callme at 561-5111.

Sincerely,

William D. Mason Planning/Research Sup2rvisor _ .,, il !, .: . .*y9 * JEFFERSON COUNTY, KENTUCKY HARVEY I. SLOANE.M.D PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVIGES EVELYN L WALDROP County JudgeIExecul~ve Cab~netD~reclor LOUISVILLEAND JEFFERSONCOUNTY ERNEST E. ALLEN PLLWNG COMMISSION PAUL A. BERGMANN.AICP, AIA ; Chief Adm~n~slral~veOnlcer Commiss~onD~reclor

September 28, 1989

William D. Mason Planning/Research Supervisor Transit Authority of River City 1000 West Broadway Louisville, Kentucky 40203 i Dear Mr. Mason, Thank you for your comments regarding the draft Clifton Neigh- borhood Plan. Your letter will be included in Appendix IV. of the report. I have forwarded a copy of the letter to the City of Louisville Public Works department and ask for their assistance in locating an appropriate site for an additional bus shelter in the Clifton neighborhood. Sincerely, 2L,- ii$ . r l; (&;j Edwin W. Mellett Planner I1 cc: Catherine Ashabraner Alderman Melissa Mershon Ben Post

IV-43 FISCAL COURT BLDG.. ROOM 900

An Equal Opporlun~tyEmployer - COMMONWEALTHOF KENTUCKY TRANSPORTATION CABINET MILOD. BRYANT RRBbYEJC~~KKXUXXX~ SECRE~RV AND COMMISSIONER OF HIGHWAYS P. 0. BOX 37090 LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY 40233

DISTRICT FIVE

August 22, 1989

City of Louisville Department of Neighborhood Services 200 South Seventh Street, Suite 200 Louisville, Kentucky 40202-2719- ATTN: Ben Post

RE: Clifton Neighborhood Plan

Dear Ben :

Please refer to your letter dated August 17. We consider the traf.fic and transportation issues in the study as being mainly within the jurisdiction of the city.

On page 109, in the first full paragraph, it should be clarified that we provide "funding -for traffic signals" and "route number signage on state maintained routes". We appreciate the opportunity to comment. Respectfully submitted,

Wade G. ~hpbell Planning Engineer Branch Manager

WGCIdgp cc: Bill Seymour

IV-44 -AN EQUAL OPWRTUNIT). EMPLOYER MIF/H- JEFFERSON COUNTY. KESTUCKY HARVEY I SLOANE M D PHYSICAL AND E~VIRONMENTALSERVICES EVELYN L WALDROP Cablnet Director County Juu~eiExecutlve LOVISVILLEAXD JEFFERSONCOUNTY ERNEST E ALLEN PL-NO GOMMISSION PAUL A BERGMANN AICP, AIA She1 Adm~nfstraliveOfllcer Commlsslon Director

September 27, 1989

Wade G. Campbell Planning Engineer Branch Manager Commonwealth of Kentucky Transportation Cabinet P. 0. Box 37090 Louisville, Kentucky 40233 Dear Mr. Campbell, Thank you for your comments on the draft Clifton Neighborhood Plan. The correction to the text was made on page 109 as you suggested. I have attached a copy of comments received from Bruce Seigle, Louis- ville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer Digtrict. Part 2-c of their comments indicate that the correction of run-off problems along Brownsboro Road in the vicinity of Haldeman and North Clifton Avenue will require milling the roadway surface to reestablish curb heights. Bruce indicates that the Transportation Cabinet would be the party responsible for making the improvements. At this time I would like to suggest that if the Transportation Cabinet undertakes future resurfacings of Brownsboro Road that they take the comments Bruce has made about drainage and milling the surface into account. Sincerely, 6,_ (,L +\i& C Edwin W. Mellett Planner I1 Enclosure cc: Catherine Ashabraner Alderman Melissa Mershon Ben Post

IV-45 FISCAL COURT BLDG ROOM 900 LOUISVILLE. KENTUCKY 40202 (502) 625-6230

An Equal ODponunllv ErnDlover Metro Parks + 1297 Trevilian Way I Post Office Box 37280 Louisville, Kentucky 40233 502 459-0440

MEMO TO: Catherine Ashabraner, Director Department of Neighborhood Services FROM : Bob Kirchdorfer, Director /3A( DATE : August 22, 1989

RE : Clifton Neighborhood Plan

Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing the Cherokee Triangle Neighborhood Plan and registering comments concerning recreation opportunities available to the residents of the Clifton neighborhood. - As you know, over the years, Metro Parks has experienced a decline in the number of full-time maintenance employees who care for the 100 City parks. Additionally, our crews mow traffic islands; maintain public cemeteries; assist Operation Brightside, the City's snow removal effort, and numerous public festivals and perform other tasks at the request of City Government. Consequently, we are reluctant to inherit from the H~ghway Department acreage along 1-64 if there is no commensurate increase in our operational budget for people to care for such a passive area. (See page 33 of the Plan.)

With regard to Bingham Park, the neighborhood was instrumental in obtaining private foundation funds for state-of-the-art play equipment which should be installed in the park very soon. Additionally, City Government has earmarked Community Development funds for rencvation work on the restrooms and basketball courts at Bingham. (Note page 21 of the Plan.)

We have some concern about a statement on page 23 of the Plan which states that "other parks [in the neighborhood] are not developed to their full potential." Bingham Park is one of the Louisville parks designed by the famous landscape architectural firm of Frederick Law Olmsted. Consequently, we belleve that much of the charm of the park stems from its trees and open spaces and that this treasure should not be overdeveloped. BK: jw

IV-46 Your Flrst Resort JEFFERSON COUNTY. KENTUCKY HARVEY I SLOANE, M 0 PHYSIGAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL, SERVIGES EVELYN L WALDROP County Judge/Execultve Cablnet D~rector LO~ISVILLEAND JEFFERSONCOUNTY ROBERT MILLER P-NG GOMMISSION PAUL A BERGMANN, AICP. AIA Chlel Admlntstratlve Onlcer Commlsston D~rector

September 27, 1989

Bob Kirchdorfer, Director Metro Parks P. 0. Box 37280 Louisville, Kentucky 40233 Dear Mr. Kirchdorfer, Thank you for your comments regarding the Draft Clifton Neighbor- hood. We understand your reluctance to accept additional maintenance responsibility for the open space along 1-64, (if it can be transferred from the Highway Department) without commensurate increases in your operational budget. At the same time the intended ( use for the space should hopefully minimize the costs associated with maintenance. The initial development of walking paths and I their design may be able to draw on human resources within the neighborhood. Several of the task force members that we worked with expressed interest in seeing this element of the plan fulfilled and members of the Crescent Hill neighborhood could also be contacted. If the Clifton Community Council can first get a commitment from the state to relinquish control over the property and then develop an improvement plan for the area we should, with your help, be better able to estimate the monies needed for your budget to carry out the operation of the facility. I As to your second and third comments regarding the neighborhood plan, (pages 21 and 23) we have added a footnote on page 21 and page 23 referencing your letter as a response to the comments received from the community. These were comments we received from the neighborhood residents and we appreciate your concern in addressing them. Finally, a response from Bruce Seigle of Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District on drainage problems in the area found no standing water in Bingharn Park, as residents reported to us, but did suggest that several low areas of the park could be

IV-47 FISCAL COURT BLDG. ROOM 9W LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY 40202 (502) 625-6230

An Equal Opportun~lyEmployer Kirchdorfer letter September 27, 1989 Page 2 eliminated with minor filling and that it would be Metro Park's responsibility to undertake this. A copy of the letter is attached. If possible, this fill work might be included in the renovation work that your agency is doing in the park. Sincerely,

Edwin W. Mellett Planner I1 Enclosure cc: Catherine Ashabraner Adlerman Melissa Mershon Ben Post JEFFERSON COUNTY.KENTUCKY

HARVEY I SLOANE M D PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES EVELYN WALDROP Counly JudgelExecullve AIRPOLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT Cablnet Dlrector

ERNEST E ALLEN August 22, 1989 ROBERT T. OFFUTT Ch~etAdmlnslrallve Onlcer Secretary.Treasurer Dep~.of Neighborhood Services 200 S. 7th Street Suite 200 Louisville, KY 40202 Dear Mr. Post:

We have reviewed your draft proposal for rehabilitation of the Clifton area and found it quite commendable.

It appears however to be lacking in regard to speclfic pollutant sources or remedies. Fe would like to make recommendations separately dealing with stationary sources and mobile sources.

-~ An effective. tool in dealing with stationary sources is a direct resident approach whereby when a resident near the stationary source witnesses an emission of any type they call the plant manager and inform them of the emission. . They may then also call the Air Pollution Control District to register a formal complaint. X series of formal complaints will usually result in punitive action against the plant but in most cases companies will respond quickly to neighborhood complaints making punitive action unnecessary.

Mobile emissions are rapidly becoming an environmental threat to Jefferson County as the number of automobiles

increase and neighborhoods attract more traffic than their roadways can handle efficiently. ' Prudent planning in this area may require limiting commercial expansion to only that required to meet the needs of the community. This may mean doing traffic studies,

requiring off street ~arking~reroutingtraffic via one way streets in some areas, etc. reducing traffic density will reduce mobile emissions.

Should you have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact me. +&/'Since ly,

/ John Bartles APC Engineer 914 EAST BROADWAY LOUISVILLE. KENTUCKY 40204 (502)584-8151 TV-49 An Equal Opporlun~tyEmpoyer JEFFERSON GOUSTY. KESTUGKY ~ARVEYI SLOANE M D PHYSICAL ,LVD ENVIRON>IENT-QL SERVICES EVELYN L WALDROP County JuugeiExecutlve Cablnet D~rector LOUISVILLEAND JEFFERSON COUNTY ERNEST E ALLEN PLLYNINGCOMMISSION PAUL A BERGMANN AICP. AIA Chief Admln8sIrallve OHcer Commlsslon D~rector

September 27, 1989

John Bartles APC Engineer I Air Pollution Control District 914 East Broadway Louisville, Kentucky 40204 Dear Mr. Bartles, Thank you for your review of the draft Clifton Neighborhood Plan. Your comments will be included in the appendix to the report. Sincerely, -,,, -,,, c "M, rb LW

Edwin W. Mellett Planner I1 cc: Catherine A~habraner Alderman Melissa Mershon Ben Post

FISCAL COURT BLDG. ROOM 900 LOUISVILLE. KENTUCKY 40202

An Equal Opportunily Employer MEMORANDUM

CITY OF LOUISVILLE

TO: Qtherine Askhmer. Director

'Office for Fmdc~e&lopent

CNl'Z: August 22, 1989 RE: Clifton Nei$knM Plan

The Office for Econanic Developmt has reviewed the July 19, 1989 draft of the Clifton NeiqhbM Plan ccwpleted for the Louisville Rnrd of Aldermen by the hxkville/Jefferson County Planning Ccannission. F'rm an emnomic developmerrt/tusiness develop=& mint, our office approves this plan and in particular its goal to enaourage high quality -ial districts. It is encc-nnaging that there were no substandard wnnm=rcial structures fovnd in the Clifton neiqhbrfiood. It is also mkmrthy that there are adequate neighkorhood services in Clifton and that the neightorhood cormnercial districts tlshculdface a very viable future1'. We wially co- with the Plantsreomumdations to develop a facade and streetsmps inprovem=nt plan for the carnnercial strip along Fm-kfort Avenue; to develop an effective kusiness organization; and to develop a market profile to help attract new tusinesses into the neighlmrhood tusiness districts1 vacant or underutilized structures.

We are confiderit that the above recmmdations can be inplemented through a collaborative effort by the Clifton Camunity Council, Alderman Melissa Mershonls Office, the Office of Neightorhcd Services, the City's Public Works Departmerrt and our Neightorhood Omumxial DevelOpnerrt Program.

We cxnmm3 the Clifton Plan Task Force members and the Im.isville/Jefferson County Planning Ccannission for their long hours and hard work in develop- this plan. cc: Carol Hensley James F. Bran JEFFERSON COCSTY. KENTUCKY HARVEY I SLOANE M D PHYSIGL4L AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVIGES EVELYN L WALOROP County JuugeiExecul~ve Cablnet D~rector LOUISVILLE.AND JEFFERSONCOUNTY ERNEST E ALLEN PLLVNING GOMMISSION PAUL A BERGMANN, AICP AIA Chief Adminlslratlve OHlcer Comm155ton D~rector

September 27, 1989

Howard A. Gudell Executive Director Office for Economic Development 515 West Market Street Louisville, Kentucky 40202 Dear Mr. Gudell, Thank you for your review of the draft Clifton Neighborhood Plan. Your comments will be included in the appendix to the report. Sincerely,

Edwin W. Mellett Planner I1 cc: Catherine Ashabraner Alderman Melissa Mershon Ben Post

FISCAL COURT BLDG: ROOM 9w LOUISVILLE. KENTUCKY 40202 (502)625-6230

An Equal Opponun~tyEmployer . ~ . . .: ...... , .. -. . ~. . :\ ,{:a - +,::u;. ; .. .c-,2 .. ...,

i ' $2,- "?:, .. , . , .. . . . ,,,. , ;.':,a? : . ,.,'.. ~,, ,:,:. .~ 5 >;~,t<~,cey20,~,~1 August. 22, 1989

Ms. Catherine Ashabraner Director Department of Neighborhood Services City of Louisville 200 South Seventh Street Suite 200 Louisville, Kentucky 40202-2719

Re: Clifton Neighborhood Plan

Dear Ms. Ashabraner:

MSD has reviewed the draft of the Clifton Neighborhood Plan and approves the plan as it relates to MSD's concerns with the following coments:

1. Page 25 - Your report quotes several sections from the Comprehensive Plan. Guideline E-10, Section C mentions on-lot wastewater disposal systems which are not appropriate in this area as it -is served by MSD sanitary sewers. 2 Page 92 - Figure I-J "Drainage Problems". This figure indicates standing water problems in four general areas. A field review of these areas was performed on August 11, 1989. The following are our observations:

A. Charlton Street from Rrlington to Paine - This street is a concrete base with an asphalt surface. Curbs were in good condition thoughout. The street is drained through catch basins connected to MSD's combined sewer system. Most of the street had been recently repaved. There was no evidence of standing water in the area that had been repaved, and it is likely that the repaving has resolved any problems which had existed. The only location which appeared to have any problems at all was near Payne Street at the entrance to the Louisville Paving Company. Dirt. and gravel from the driveway had been tracked into the street. Paving of the driveway by this company would minimize problems in this area.

B. Bingham Park - Drainage in this park is provided by an MSD combined sewer. MSD recently completed repairs on this sewer. Although there was no evidence of standing water, there appeared to be several low areas in the park which could be eliminated with some minor filling and regrading. This work would be the responsibility of the Parks Department.

C. Brownsboro Road between Haldeman and North Clifton - This is a state-maintained road with curbs. It is a concrete based street which has been repaved with asphalt several layers thick. Drainage is provided by combined sewers and catch basins maintainedby MSD. ------Ms. Catherine Ashabraner August 22, 1989 Page 2

One problem noted during an inspection of the area was that successive pavlng the street has resulted in the loss of curb height. In addition, the asphalt along the curb is somewhat uneven due to differential settling and compaction. This is most evident at the main entrance to the Cliffside Plaza on the north side of Brownsboro Road west of Kenilworth Road. In this area the curb is almost completely covered and concrete sidewalks adjacent to the roadway have cracks and settled creating small nuisance ponding areas.

Our recommended solution is milling the old pavement prior to repaving. This would re-establish the curb height and provide a smoother, more uniform surface. This work would have to be performed by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. Additionally, the sidewalks and driveway entrances to the shopping center should be reconstructed by the property owner or the City of Louisville. Tt would be beneficial at the time the sidewalks are reconstructed, to better define ingress and egress points to improve traffic safety.

The second problem noted was the presence of springs originating on the hillside north of Brownsboro Road between Lindsay Avenue and Mt. Holly Road. Most of the springs are minor and do not result in problems. However, one large spring is originating at the rear of 2009 Browsboro Road, which is flowing through the parking area and into the street. This property is a former "Lums" restaurant. A developer began work at this site without a permit and a stop-work order was issued by the City of Louisville at MSD's request. The contractor's operation prior to being stopped appears to have aggravated the situation. The developer will be required as part of his work to eliminate this situation. MSD will insure this is corrected during construction.

D. North Jane Street between Brownsboro Road and Sycamore - This is an asphalt street which is drained, via catch basins, into MSD's combined sewer system. The lower part of the street near Browsboro Road is immediately adjacent to a large parking lot in front of the Cliftboro Center (Kroger, Super-X and Liberty National Bank). There is no separation between the parking lot and the roadway and approximately 2/3 of the parking lot drains to one catch basin located in Jane Street. No standing water exists in this area, but the single catch basin is not adequate to drain this large area without flooding during moderate to heavy rainstorms. ------Ms. Catherine Ashabraner August 22, 1989 Page 3

Solutions could involve adding more and larger catch basins in Jane Street or requiring the owner of the shopping center to construct drainage facilities in the parking lot to intercept most if not all of the drainage. Under current City ordinances and design criteria, this situation would not have been allowed.

Beyond the parking lot, Jane Street narrows to a one-lane road. Although an MSD combined sewer exists, there are few catch basins or inlets to intercept the drainage. MSD is currently investigating complaints in this area and will attempt to resolve some or all of the problems by cleaning existing catch basins and possibly adding additional basins if required.

One alternative which could resolve the problems throughout the length of North Jane Street would be for the City to reconstruct and widen the street. Since MSD sewers exist, adding Urainage inlets could be economically performed as part of a joint City/MSD project. Funding for such a project would require approval from the Board of Aldermen and MSD's Board.

3. In addition to the four areas shown on Figure I-J, MSD's complaint monitoring system contained four other drainage complaints which are still active, in the Clifton Neighbor- hood area. All of these complaints are being investigated for solutions at this time. There was only one complaint in the area concerning a sewer backing up into a basement which was due to the large storm in July and involved a house whose basement is very low compared to the street grade. MSD will be providing technical assistance to the homeowner to help prevent any reoccurrences of this problem.

If you have questions concerning MSD's comments or require further information, please call. n

I/ Bruce R. Seigle, P.E. Systems, Planning & Manager

cc: G. R. Garner J. C. Beyke R. F. Smith JEFFERSON COUNTY, KENTUCKY HARVEY I SLOANE. M D PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVIGES EVELYN L WALDROP County JuogelExecut~ve Cablnet Dlrector LOUISVILLEAND JEFFERSONCOUNTY ERNEST E ALLEN PL-G GOMXISSION PAUL A BERGMANN. AICP. AIA Chlel Admlnlslrallve On~cer Cornrn~ss~onD~rmor September 27, 1989 i

Bruce R. Seigle, P.E. Systems, Planning and Development Metropolitan Sewer District P. 0. Box 740011 Louisville, Kentucky 40201 RE: Clifton Neighborhood Plan Comments Dear Mr. Seigle, ~I Thank you for your detailed comments on the Clifton Neighborhood Plan draft. The letter will be included in Appendix IV of the report and we will make the following modifications to the report based on your comments. 1. Page 25 - Guideline E-10. We have added a footnote indicating that references to on-lot disposal of wastewater is an "Element I of the guideline, not suggested for application in the Clifton I neighborhood." 2. The term "standing water" on the "Drainage Problemsn map showing four general areas identifiedby residents of the neighborhood will be replaced on the legend to read "Areas where temporary backups or standing water exist." Further, a reference to your letter will be made on the legend page and copies of the letter sent to Metro Parks, KYDOT and the City of ~ouisville~~ublicWorks Department noting the comments for ZLB, 2-C and 2-D respectively. Thank you again for your comments. Sincerely,

i - Cu?- 6 \i,iGT'

Edwin W. Mellett Planner I1 cc: Catherine Ashabraner Alderman Melissa Nershon Ben Post

.~ FISCAL COURT BLDG .ROOM 900 LOUISVILLE KENTUCKY 40202 (502) 625-6230 MEMORANDUM

CITY OF LOUISVILLE

TO: CATHERINE ASHABRANER, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES

FROM : JAMES ALLEN, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEV

DATE : AUGUST 23,1989 RE: CLIFTON NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN - My staff has reviewed the Clifton Neighborhood Plan and have a few comments with respect to housing and rehab. These generally relate to the Implementation Section D 4.a - I Protection of Historic Structures. We feel that any additional constraints placed on the rehab of residential structures by creating a local preservation district wbuld have a negative impact on the incentive to rehab and thus not be of benefit in ungrading the neighborhood. Indeed, the historic resources are there. However, it must be noted that this area is a lower-income area -- hence the inclusion of this area ih the Rehab Incentive Program. There are already some constraints on rehab using federal funds there because some of the area is a National Register Dis- trict. (Rehab, according the Secretary of the Interior's guidelines, is more expensive than that occurring with private money.) An additional overlay could cause additional requirements (and thus, expense) and could cause additional delays. This would discourage rehab in this lower-income area. While we appreciate the intent, we feel the practical aspects of housing and the neighborhood would be better served by exclusion of that recommedation. JEFFERSON GOUSTY. KEPc'TCGKY HARVEY I. SLOANE. M.D. PHYSICAL ,4ND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES EVELYN L WALDROP County JuugeiExecueve Cab~netDireclor LOUISVILLEAND JEFFERSONCOUNTY ERNEST E ALLEN PLANNINGGOMMI~SION PAUL A. BERGMANN, AICP, AIA i Chel Admtnlstralive OHlcer Commlsslon Dmrector

I September 27, 1989 I

James Allen, Director Department of Housing and Urban Development 727 West Main Street Louisville, Kentucky 40202 Dear Mr. Allen, Thank you for your staff's comments on the draft Clifton Neighbor- hood Plan. You have raised a significant issue concerning the impacts that creating a local preservation district or design review overlay district would have on residential rehabilitation under the Rehab Incentive Program. Our staff is considering eliminating the preservation/design review proposals or possibly modifying them to correct the deficiencies your staff has identified. I have sent a I copy of your comments to J. Michael Brown asking'for his office to comment on the impacts. We will hold up issue of a final report until we get response from IP&L and if necessary, can meat with representatives from that office and yours to discuss the impacts of conflicting program goals. At this time I am inclined to rewrite the section (D. 4.a) so that any expansion of the historic district, creation of a local historic preservation district or design overlay review would be limited to the commercial structures in the strip along Frankfort Avenue. We will relay comments from J. Michael Brown's office to your office and try to resolve this question as quickly as possible. Sincerely,

Edwin W. ~eilett Planner I1 cc: Catherine Ashabraner Alderman Melissa Mershon Ben Post

-. -- FISCAL COURT BLDG ROOM 900 LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY 40202 (502) 625.6230

An Equal Opportunity Employer JEFFERSON COUNTY. KENTUCKY HARVEY I SLOANE M D PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES EVELYN L WALDROP County JudgeIExecut~ve Cabmet D~rector LOUISVILLEAND JEFFERSONCOUNTY ERNEST E ALLEN PL~NGCOMMISSION PAUL A BERQMANN. AICP. AIA Chief Adrnln~strallveOnfcer ComonD~reclor

October 24, 1989

James Allen, Director Department of Housing and Urban Development 727 West Main street Louisville, Kentucky 40202 Dear Mr. Allen, i The final version of the Clifton Neighborhood plan has been modified based on the comments you made regarding the impacts of expanding the level of historic preservation controls or the residential areas covered by such regulations. Further review of the process leading to these recommendations, and review of the meetings where the issues and alternatives were discussed with Pam Vetter (chairman of the Clifton Community Council), confirmed that the intention of the task force was directed to the creation of jlddltignal. . controls over the commercial uses in the Frankfort Avenue corridor, The text on pages 30 through 32 of the draft report should clarify the intent of the task force regarding this matter. Subsequent references to a local historic preservation district/design overlay district in the land use recommendations summary and in the implementation section will be edited to reflect this narrower intent. Thank you again for your comments. If you have further questions regarding the plan please contact me. Sincerely,ad--- Edwin W. Mellett Planner I1 cc: Catherine Ashabraner Alderman Melissa Mershon Ann Hassett J. Michael Brown Ben Post IV-59 FISCAL COURT BLDG. ROOM 900 LOUISVILLE. KENTUCKY 40202 (502) 625.&0

An Equal Opportunity Ernployel >. LOUISVILLE WATER COMPANY

435 SOUTH THIRD STREET . LOUISVILLE. KENTUCKY 40202 502-569-3600

August 24, 1989

Catherine Ashabraner Director City of Louisville Dept. of Neighborhood Services 200 South Seventh St., Suite 200 Louisville, KY 40202-2719 SUBJECT: Clifton Neighborhood Plan Dear Ms. Ashabraner: The Clifton Neighborhood is served by the Louisville Water Company through a network of existing distribution water mains ranging in size from 6-inch to-12-inch. A transmission facility 36- inch in diameter exists through this area along Frankfort Avenue which serves as a major feed for water from the Company's Crescent Hill Treatment Plant to the downtown area. Generally speaking the existing water system built circa 1900 in this neighborhood is considered sound structurally and of reasonably low maintenance. However, at the time of original construction pipe materials in use were of unlined cast iron as opposed to present cement mortar lined ductile iron, and are prone to internal corrosion. Louisville Water Company's Main Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (MRRP) has allowed replacement of many water mains in this area which were inadequate for area fire flow demands or were considered of high maintenance. They are as follows: STREET NAME Mellwood Avenue Frankfort/Brownsbor Brownsboro Road Mellwood/State Pope Street Charlton/Brownsboro Arlington Avenue Pope/Haldeman State Street Frankfot/3501 north Bellaire Avenue Payne/New Main Emerald Avenue Bellaire/Vernon Payne Street Vance/Jane Jane Street Payne/Frankfort Saunders Avenue Bickel/Payne

An Equal Opportunity Employer IV-60 Catherine Ashabraner Dept. of Neighborhood services Louisville, KY August 24, 1989 Page Two

The Louisville Water Company during recent years as part of MRRP has exercised a program to mechanically clean and cement line certain water mains. This action is directed to increasing fire flow capabilities and toward improved water quality. The existing 36-inch transmission main in Frankfort Avenue is a candidate for such rehabilitation and could be scheduled as early as 1990. It can be expected in the future that smaller distribution mains which are determined structurally sound such as many of those in this particular area would become candidates to be rehabilitated by the clean and line method, although, specific plans are not available at this time. Included in our 1989 Main Replacement and Rehabilitation Program are two (2) projects which fall within the Clifton Neighbor- hood. - State Street Main Replacement (Brownsboro Road to 350' north of Frankfort Avenue) Ewing Avenue Main Replacement (Brownsboro Road to Payne Street) These projects are identified as alternate candidates to be moved forward in the 1989 program should funds become available. However, the probability is greater that funding will be provided to complete this work during 1990. The Louisville Water Company has reviewed the Clifton Neighborhood Plan and offers these preceding comments which relate to the area's water supply system.

~anager, Engineering Services GMJ/cr cc: Frank C. Campbell John L. Huber Jerry R. Ford

IV-61 LOUISVILLE WATER COMPANY . I V,," -'. ., "*.n, 8 8 I8 8 PROPOSED PROJECTS 1989-1990 '. k COMPLETED AREA WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS Source: Louisville Water Company, September 1989 'I CLIFTON

NEIGHBORHOODIOYI..ll.. ,...... om

~~~~ - . . - . -, , - . -: ii. - ..~ .' .-, .\", t -, V&,' JEFFERSON GOUSTY. KEXTUGKY ~ARVEY'I SLOANE. M D PHYSIGAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES EVELYN L WALDROP County JuogeiExecutlve LOUISVILLE AND JEPPERSONCOUNTY Cab~netD~rector

ERNEST E ALLEN PLLYMNGGOMMISSION PAUL A. BERGMANN. AICP, AIA Chel Adm~n~strariveOnicer Comm~ss~onDirector i

September 27, 1989

George M. Jefferies Manager, Engineering Services Louisville Water Company 435 South Third Street Louisville, Kentucky 40202 Dear Mr. Jefferies, Thank you for reviewing projects in the Clifton neighborhood for us. A copy of your letter and a map of the projects will be included in the final report in Appendix IV. The project involving replacement of the State Street main from Brownsboro Road to 350 feet north of Frankfort Avenue will involve a brick street segment. We encourage your contractors to comply with requirements that the Public Works Department has regarding restoration of brick streets to original condition after work such as this. Greg Singlust (625-3111) of the Department of Public Works can answer questions regarding this policy.

Edwin W. Mellett Planner I1 cc: Greg Singlust Catherine Ashabraner Alderman Melissa Mershon Ben Post

IV-63 FISCAL COURT BLDG. ROOM 900 LOUISVILLE. KENTUCKY 40202 (502)625.6230

An Equal Opportunity Employer City of Louisville

JERRY E ABRAMSON EMERGENGYMEDIGAL SERVIGES RICHARD N BARTLETr MAYOR DIRECTOR 1805 South Brook Streel Louisville, KY 40208-1986 (502)636-3530

TO: Catherine Ashabraner, Di Department of Neighborho FROM: Richard N. Bartlett, Dire Emergency Medical Serv 1 DATE: August 24, 1989 - ~ RE: Clifton Neighborhood Plan I have no objection to the draft plan as forwarded to me on July 28th. It appears to be well done and carefully thought - through. I

cc: Tom Kuster, Safety

An Equal Opporlun~lyEmploye! IV-64 JEFFERSON GOC'NTY. KENTUCKY HARVEY I SLOANE M D PHYSICAL AVD ENX'IRONMENTAL SERVICES EVELYN L WALDROP County JuugeiExecul~ve Cablnel D~rector LOUISVILLEAND JEFFERSONCOUNTY ERNEST E ALLEN PLANNINGCOMMISSION PAUL A BERGMANN. AICP. AIA Chlel Admln~strailveOnlcer Comm~sslonD~reclor

September 27, 1989

Richard N. Bartlett, Director Emergency Medical Services 1805 South Brook Street Louisville, Kentucky 40208-1986 Dear Mr. Bartlett, Thank you for your review of the draft Clifton Neighborhood Plan. Your comments will be included in the appendix to the report. Sincerely,

Edwin W. Mellett Planner 11 cc: Catherine Ashabraner Alderman Melissa Mershon Ben Post

FISCAL COURT BLDG ROOM 900 LOUISVILLE. KENTUCKY 40202 (502)625.6230

An Equal Oppon~n~fyEmployer f JEFFERSON COUNTY, KENTUCKY MASON C RUDD HARVEY I SLOANE. M D FAMILY AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVIGES Board Chalrman County JudgelExecutlve LOUISVILLEAND JEPFEIISOYCOUNTY BOARD OF HEALTII DAVID T. ALLEN, M.D., M P.H. ERNEST E ALLEN D~rec(orof Chief Adrninislratwe OHlcer Public Heallh Services August 25, 1989

Catherine Ashabraner, Director Department of Neighborhood Services City of Louisville 200 South Seventh Street, Suite 200 .Louisville, Kentucky 40202-2719

- Re: Clifton Neighborhood Plan

Dear Ms. Ashabraner:

In accordance with Resolution 254, Series 1988, the Louisville and Jefferson County Board of Health has reviewed the draft Clifton Neighborhood Plan. I Based on the review conducted, the Department approves of the plan.

Should you have questions, please feel free to contact me at 625-6621.

Sincerely,

Clark Bledsoe Deputy for Environmental and Engineering Services

CBIPV cc: David T. Allen

cl f tnpln

P.O. BOX 1704 400 EAST GRAY STREET LOUISVILLE. KENTUCKY 40201

An Equal Opponun~lyEmployer IV-66 JEFFERSON COUXTY, KENTUCKY HARVEY I SLOANE M D PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES EVELYN L WALDROP County JuugelExecut~ve Cab~netD~reclor LOU~SV~LLELVD JEFFERSON COUNTY

ERNEST E ALLEN PAUL A. BERGMANN. AICP, AIA ! Chlef Admlntslrat~veOttlcer Commission Direclor

September 27, 1989

Clark Bledsoe Deputy for Environmental and Engineering Services Louisville and Jefferson County Board of Health P. 0. Box 1704 Louisville, Kentucky 40201

I Dear Mr. Bledsoe,

Thank you for your review of the draft Clifton Neighborhood Plan. Your comments will be included in the appendix to the report. Sincerely,

Edwin W. Mellett Planner I1 cc: Catherine Ashabraner Alderman Melissa Mershon Ben Post

-. -. FISCAL COURT SCDG. ROOM 900 LOUISVILLE. KENTUCKY 40202 (502) 625-6230

An Equal Opponunlly Employer MEMORANDUM

CITY OF LOUISVILLE

TO: Ben Post Planner,

FROM :

DATE : August 30, 196 RE: Clifton Neighborhood Plan

I had asked Ann Hassett and Landmarks staff to review the draft of the Clifton Neighborhood Plan. Their recommendations and comments follow. * National Register Historic District map on p 89 needs corrections as indicated. * Typographical errors as noted. * The reason for high restaurant turnover in the area (p 19) could be a result of poor management, rather than I oversupply. * Suggest adding two government actions to p 22 -- sign regulations on billboards and the demolition notice provisions for national register properties. * Correction on p 34 concerning tax laws.

* A "#7" should be added on p 34 about the tax assessment . moratorium, or add a short paragraph at the bottom of the page. I * It is not likely that the historic district can be expanded as suggested on p 41, although the historic district, or perhaps a portion of it, could be made a local preservation district if owners want design review. * Add the property tax assessment moratorium to #14 on p 42. * A slight change of wording is suggested for "e" and deletion of the parenthetical statement on p 52 and deletion of the sentence on p 53. It is a truism that tax laws may change, but the statements come off as unnecessarily negative. In fact, more usable incentives are likely. * Suggest that Development Incentives be added to Appendix 11, and that Weeter and Mershon letters and Clay article be added to Appendix IV.

Please excuse the handwritten notes -- it was simply the fastest way to comment on a document of this size. cc: A. Hassett City of Louisville 1)rvrsio~or l'or.lc;ls THOMAS T KUSTER 633 W. Jelferson Slreel Loulsv~lle,KY 40202-2485 D~raclor01 Safely

September 8, 1989

TO: MS. CATHERINE ASHABRANER DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBOR1100D SERVICES

FROM : COLONEL RTCRARD TI, DOTSON CHIEF OF POLICE

HE: CLIFTON NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN

'I'his plan has been reviewed by the District Captain in which the Clifton Neighborhood is located. He found no major concerns. Based on this review, it is approved by this Department.

A copy of the plan will be placed in our files for future reference. ,?

. Colonel Richard L. Dotson Chief of Police

IV-70 An Equal Opportunity Employer JEFFERSON COCST17. KESTCCKY HARVEY I SLOANE M D PHYSICAL -LvD E9VIRONMESTL4L SERVICES EVELYN L WALDROP County JuugeiExeculive LOUISVILLEASD JEFFERSONCOUNTY Cablnel D~reclor ERNEST E ALLEN PAUL A. BERGMANN. AICP, AIA Chlel Adm~n!stralrveOll~cer Cornm~ss~onDirector

October 6, 1989

Colonel Richard L. Dotson Chief of Police 633 West Jefferson Street Louisville, Ky 40202 Dear Chief Dotson, Thank you for your department: review of the draft Clifton Neigh- borhood Plan. Your letter will be included in Appendix IV. of the final report. Sincerely,

Edwin W. Mellett Planner I1 cc: Catherine Ashabraner Alderman Melissa Mershon Ben Post

IV-71 FISCAL COURT BLDG. .ROOM 900 LOUISVILLE. KENTUCKY 40202 (502) 625.6&30

An Equal Opponun~fyEmployer

- ...... -.\, * , -- *. . - .. <. , . 'i ,_ ~ ' ,, . . .1 .1. +' '\, ,, vx> - / JEFFERSOS GOUSTY. KEXTUGKY HARVEY I SLOANE. M.D. PHYSIGAL XyD ENT'IRONMENT,QL SERVIGES EVELYN L. WALDROP County JuugeiExecul~ve Loursvl~~~AXD JEFFERSON COUXTY Cabmet D~rector ERNEST E 4LLEN PLL*TNINGCOMMISSION PAUL A. BERGMANN. AlCP AIA Chlei Admlnistratve Olllcer Commlsslon Dlrector

September 27, 1989

J. Michael Brown Director, Department of Inspections Permits and Licenses City Hall Louisville, Kentucky 40202 Dear Mr. Brown, Thank you for your staff's comments on the draft Clifton Neiqhbor- hood Plan. In response to your staffs' comments we made the following modifications: - National Register Historic District map was corrected (and two structures on the National Register and one nominated were located). - Typographic errors were corrected. - Reference to reason for high restaurant turnover was deleted as speculation. - Government actions referring to sign regulations on billboards and demolition notices for National Register properties were added on page 22. - Correction on page 34 concerning tax laws was made as suggested. - Reference to tax assessment moratori~unfar properties over 25 years of age on page 34 was merged with alternative 9-5 rather than listed as a new alternative as suggested. - We have received a comment from James Allen, Director of Housing and Urban Development, which questions the idea of expanding the historic district boundaries, creating a local historic preservation district or a design review overlay district. The attached letter from James Allen raises issues

FISCAL COURT BLDG ROOM 900 LOUISVILLE. KENTUCKY 40202 (502) 625.6230

An Equal Opponun~lyEmployer

- -~ -- ~ -~ . ~ ~~ ~ ~~-~ Brown letter September 26, 1989 Page 2

about the impacts such a review process would have on the rehabilitation of residential structures. We would like additional feed back from you and your staff on this issue. - Property tax assessment moratorium comment added as suggested on Page 12. - Changes referring to potential for federal tax law change were made as suggested on pages 52 and 53. - Development incentives were added to Appendix 11. Clay article, Weeter and Mershon letters were not added to Appendix IV. The letters predate plan work, article wasn't felt needed for understanding the plan nor was it referred to elsewhere. We would like your comments on James Allen's letter before we finalize the draft. If necessary we can arrange a meeting between the parties involved to try to iron out the conflicts between housing rehabilitation programs and historic or design based development restrictions.

At this time I am inclined to rewrite the Section D 4.a so that any .. expansion of the historic district, creation of a local historic preservation district or a design overlay review would be limited to the commercial structures in the strip along Frankfort Avenue. Sincerely, C'I L-& bt Edwin W. Mellett Planner I1 Enclosure cc: Catherine Ashabraner Alderman Melisba Mershon Ben Post Norman Nezelkewicz September 15, 1989 Page 2 adjacent land use, stc., of .the street rather' than a device to discourage traffic flcw. With respect to the placement of additional stop signs, i's should be noted that stop signs can "cause" zdd.ifianal acciden.Ls when .they are placed in inappropriate locations. Further, the plan notes that the Public Works Department' (presumably City of Louisville) does no't endorse this alternative. I recommend that we gener.2lly concur with the pssitioil of the Public works Depa'ryment and that our position be that stop signs be' located based on safety considerations and not used to discourage traffic flew. . . The second areu of concern involves 'crdc~routes. Specifically, a sectlsn of the plan cancerning truck routes (p. 114) indicates that signage should be iastalied along five streets indicating that chey are truck routes. The Louisville/Jefferson County Truck Route Plan Study completed last year concluded that only routes from which trucks were restricted would be signed. This was done to reduce the cost involved with placing and maintaining signs. The preferred alternative routes for trucks to use were to be shown on a map (along with the restricted routes) which could be given to truck drivers, trucking firms, etc. By doing this, the truck driver could plan a route which best utilized the preferred alternative'routes. The section of the Clifton Neighborhood Plan concerning truck routes mentions an outreach program to inform businesses generating truck traffic of the problems caused and the solutions proposed. This program might be an appropriate means for distributing the maps to truck drivers. In addition to the concern about signage of truck routes, two of the streets, Ewing Avenue and Payne Street, are marginal as truck routes. Both have sufficient width to accommodate trucks, but it may be necessary to prohibit parking from one side of Ewing Avenue to ensure that there will be no problems. It does not appear that a parking prohibition on one side of Ewing Avenue will cause any problems with lack of parking availability. The major concerns with using either of these streets as truck routes are the residential land use adjacent to them and the grades in some locations. It was noted that there was some industrial land use which may be generating truck traffic using Payne Street near 1-64, but such land use is the exception rather than the rule along these streets. The designation of Ewing Avenue and Payne Streets as truck routes may be due Norman '~ezelkewicz September 15, 1989 Page 3 to the lack of good alternatives in those corridors. There was not time,to fully investigate the a1t.ernative streets, but many orthem appear to be narrower and inappropriate for truck traffic. Therefore, unless alternative routes are .to be developed, Ewing Avenue and Payne Street may have to function as truck routes. In addition, in the case of Ewing Avenue, it might be suggested that coordination L tween the Clifton and Crescent Hill N~;ighborhoods.,.be used to find a better solutinn tc their cormon problem. As previously mentioned, the plan seems to address the transportation problems of the neighborhood adequately. However, because of the concerns mentioned herein, t recommend that KLPQA take a neutral position neither approving or disapprovinq the transportation section of the plan hut rather statinq these concerns. (Two additional comments were received regarding the neighborhood plan after the public hearing.)

COMMENT

F. The owner of 116 North The Task Force felt that ..,,.. . a sli.fton. (,l3r.enkthOesterrif ter ) . this. was a concern.tthdt-.shoUl&! ,.,,:pbje-d $0 the .pl,ans . recDm- be. addressed as pa~Zf;:dfJ?~tW mended rezoning of his property rezoning and not".~? i a .6@~a.n?i

from R-7 to R-4. Christy amendment. n, , .: , ..? ~ r:? $3":"L-,- ?! ;, ,., - .< >, : .,:-..-. 7 Chandler from 119 North Clif- , . ., *.. - . .. ., ~2,.1. ' -. : ,., .-$3 ton Avenue also opposed this . ' 2,. ..>.,.,, change. Current useappeared to be single family based on tax and directory sources, but Mr. . Oesterritter indicated . there !;we?&?..:multiple units on the,:.si$e., ,' . ,,., ,. ..). . , .. . .<<. : \ . . . .* .9:* " 5;. ~ . . ..,. r . ,::: 3 . ,. <. '"3 . a . , . F. . T& Clifton Community . . . The .text.(,was-%c.amena.d la&"' ..... ' ,.~o,~G,cil* . s.ug&=ted .the."&anguage:- 7 own in the addendum. - .. . : ,sgpggr.t:$ieg:~Local :: Landmarks ",- :;. ,I .:s .S.I Designation for the Tollhouse : ,# (2311 Frankfort Avenue) and all . . . ".:~ . ... ' I I National Reqister eligible r , .. ;, , . I? buildings within the neighborhood, be added to the.plan. "