Crescent Hill Neighborhood Plan

CRESCENT HILL NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN

- Prepared for the Mayor, the Board of Aldermen, the Neighborhood Development Cabinet and the residents of the Crescent Hill Neighbor- hood of the City of Louisville. The preparation of this document was financed in part with federal Housing and Community Development funds.

October, 1985

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION I . LAND USE A . Needs Assessment 1 . Summary of Findings ...... 1 2 . Existing Conditions ...... 1 3 . Neighborhood Profile ...... 10 4 . Analysis ...... 12 5 . Government and Non-Government Actions ...... 17 6 . Summary of Problems and Issues ...... 18 B . Projection of Existing Conditions ...... 21 C . Alternatives and Recommendations 1 . Alternative Strategies ...... 23 2 . Recommended Land Use Plan ...... 27 D . Implementation ...... 31 E . Priorities ...... 41 LAND USE FIGURES I1 . TRANSPORTATION A . Needs Assessment 1 . Summary of Findings ...... 43 2 . Existing Conditions ...... 43 3 . Analysis of Existing Conditions ...... 47 4 . Issues and Problems ...... 54 5 . Government and Non-Government Actions ...... 55 B . Projections ...... 58 C . Alternatives and Recommendations 1 . Alternative Strategies ...... 60 2 . Recommended Transportation Plan ...... 66 D . Implementation ...... 69 E . Priorities ...... 76 TRANSPORTATION FIGURES APPENDIX Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. BACKGROUND 1. Plan Preparation The Crescent Hill Neighborhood Plan was prepared in the Spring and Summer of 1985. The staff of the Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission worked closely with the Planning Committee of the Crescent Hill Community Council to develop this plan. The Planning Committee is composed of neighborhood residents with expertise in a variety of fields related to neighborhood improvement. Prior efforts by the Planning Committee established issues and recommendations that were to be addressed in the Crescent Hill Neighborhood Plan. Development of this plan was carried out under a contract with the City of Louisville Neighborhood Development Cabinet, at the request of the Mayor and the Board of Aldermen. The Plan was prepared in part with federal Community Development Block Grant funds. This,Plan was developed in accordance with the Neigh- borhood Plan Ordinance (Ordinance No. 22, Series 1980, City of Louisville). 2. Purpose of Plan The purpose of this plan is to identify the needs of Crescent Hill residents and businesses in terms of land use and transportation. The Plan is intended to provide specific recommendations that will promote the revitalization and long-term stability of residential areas, improve neighborhood stores and shopping areas, correct existing and projected traffic problems, and provide adequate transportation services for the study area. After the plan is adopted by the Board of Aldermen, it will guide decision-making by the Board and the Mayor in matters concerning the Crescent Hill area. Specifically, the Board of Aldermen: - - will consider the plan's recommendations in the development of city-wide plans, provision of services and preparation of budgets; -- may act as applicant for zoning change proposals recommended by the plan; and - - will consider the plan as official planning evidence in its review of zoning changes requested by individual property owners. Similarly, the Executive Branch and associated agencies will use the plan to : -- develop city-wide plans and policies; -- guide the provision of services; and - - prepare and review General Revenue and Community Development budgets. 3. Neighborhood Plan Ordinance Compliance The Crescent Hill Plan was developed in compliance with City Ordi- nance No. 22, Series 1980. This ordinance establishes the required content and process for preparation and adoption of neighborhood plans. The Crescent Hill Neighborhood Plan consists of a land use and transportation section. Adoption by the Board of Aldermen will be sought for the Plan's land use and transportation section. B. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations of the Crescent Hill Neighborhood Plan consist of a series of guidelines (written recommendation statements) and two maps. The guidelines are on pages 27 through 29 (land use) and 66 through 68 (transportation). The land use and transportation recommendation maps, Figure 1-6 and Figure 11-7, appear at the end of the land use and transportation sections, respectively. Proposed zoning changes are illustrated on Figure 1-7. Existing conditions in Crescent Hill, issues facing the neighborhood and recommendations for the area are summarized in the following paragraphs. 1. Land Use a. Existing Conditions Crescent Hill neighborhood as defined in this study is bounded by Ewinq Avenue on the west, Brownsboro Road and Madelle Avenue on the north, the city limits on the east and Lexington Road on the south. Most of Crescent Hill is occupied by housing or large institutional uses (Masonic Home, Southern Baptist Seminary, Louisville Water Company, St. Joseph's Orphanage). Taken together the institutions occupy 46% of Crescent Hill; homes occupy 39%. Shops and offices occupy only 2% of Crescent Hill; they are located in intermittent commercial strips.along Brownsboro Road and Frankfort Avenue. Existing land use is indicated on the maps starting on page 9. Existing zoning in Crescent Hill is residential (96%) and commercial (4%). In residential areas the most cbmmon zoning is the R-5 (single-family) zone, followed by the R-5A and R-6 apartment zones. Existing zoning can be read from the maps beginning on page 14. Homes in Crescent Hill are generally in very good condition. One-half of the neighborhood's dwelling units are owner-occupied, 60% are single-family homes. The population of Crescent Hill in 1980 was 8,700. Median family income in Crescent Hill is significantly higher than in the city as a whole. b. Issues and Recommendations Several institutions have large land holdings in Crescent Hill. The open space they provide adds to the neighborhood's "small town" character. Redevelopment of these sites in the future could have a significant effect on Crescent Hill. The Plan recommends that the Crescent Hill Community Council maintain contact with the institutions concerning future use of their sites. The neighborhood should provide input on future development, to ensure compatibility with existing development. In addition, the Plan recommends measures to preserve open space corridors where undeveloped land exists along major streets. Crescent Hill contains a large historic district listed on the National Register of Historic Places. However, there is no review process of new development to protect the area's architectural resources. The Plan proposes a voluntary program to promote compatible development based on a design consultation service. The Plan further recommends a city-wide procedure whereby government agencies would seek neighborhood review of new development that may have a significant effect on residential areas. Steep slopes and tree-covered hillsides are an important part of Crescent Hill's character. The Plan proposes preserving these areas as open space or limiting them to lower intensity development designed to protect the environment. Cluster development on the least sloping portion of steep sites is recommended; development at a lower intensity than permitted by existing zoning is also endorsed. Protection and maintenance of the Hilliard Scenic Easement is endorsed. Frankfort Avenue and Brownsboro Road are commuter routes for affluent sections of Louisville. An expansion of commercial use may occur along these streets in the future. At the same time there is a need to improve existing stores, especially along Frankfort Avenue. Under-used shops that are not well maintained detract from the area's appearance. A lack of off-street parking is an impediment to businesses in this area. The Plan delineates proposed boundaries for commercial use (Figure 1-6,). Additional parking is proposed by marking the curb lanes of Frankfort Avenue for parking, using vacant land at the rear of shops and exploring use of the railroad property for parking. Improved signage, better property maintenance, alley improvements and an effective business association are also recommended. Much of Crescent Hill was rezoned after the 1974 tornado, and is appropriately zoned for existing development. However, in some areas residential zoning allows higher density use than presently exists; some single-family areas are zoned for apartment use. There are also limited instances of homes zoned for commercial development. The Plan proposes rezoning residential areas to the lowest density zoning district consistent with existing use. Based on this recommendation a map of proposed zoning changes has been prepared, Figure 1-7. Billboards along major streets do not contribute to the neighborhood's appearance. Some parking lots in Crescent Hill lack screening and landscaping. The Plan proposes adoption of more stringent billboard regulations and supports removal of existing billboards. Beautification of existing parking lots and enforcement of city requirements for landscaping new parking lots are recommended. Beyond these specific improvements, the Plan proposes several actions to enhance the appearance of Crescent Hill: beautification of the railroad right-of-way, consistent business signs, a symbol or focal point for the neighborhood, a landscaping plan, etc. 2. Transportation a. Existing Conditions The regular grid pattern of city streets is interrupted in Crescent Hill by steep hills and large institutions. Major east-west streets pass through the neighborhood; Stilz and Hillcrest Avenues form the major north-south corridor in Crescent Hill. Brownsboro Road and Frankfort Avenue are classified as major arterial streets; Lexington Road, Grinstead Drive and Hillcrest Avenue are minor arterials. Crescent Hill has direct access to the interstate highway system through the Grinstead Drive interchange. The Seaboard System (formerly L&N) railroad parallels Frankfort Avenue for the length of Crescent Hill. There are sixteen at-grade railroad crossings in the neighborhood. Six bus routes serve Crescent Hill, as do two designated bikeways. b. Issues and Recommendations The Seaboard right-of-way along Frankfort Avenue has a single rail line; the space formerly occupied by a second track is vacant. Crescent Hill neighborhood has studied use of this land for some time. The Plan recommends several uses of this land, if such use is acceptable to the railroad and does not create safety hazards. Landscaped off-street parking is recommended for areas adjacent to commercial sections of Frankfort Avenue. A bikeway and jogging trail are also suggested. The Tlan also recommends maintaining the excess right-of-way as a landscaped buffer, a function it currently fulfills. The concept of a busway corridor in this location is strongly opposed by area residents. The offset alignment of Hillcrest and Stilz Avenues and Frankfort Avenue is difficult to maneuver and experiences traffic congestion. The Plan recommends addition of a second lane for southbound Hill- crest traffic at Frankfort, restricting on-street parking near the intersection, and improvements to the median on Stilz. These improvements which could be accomplished in the short term are shown in Figure 11-7A. If traffic volumes at this intersection increase significantly, reconstruction may be needed, to eliminate the offset alignment of Hillcrest and Stilz Avenues. This is an expensive project ($600,000 plus right-of-way costs) that is not justificable given existing traffic volumes, but is a long range goal of the neighborhood. Figure 11-7B shows the reconstruction of this intersection. Traffic that avoids the light at Hillcrest and Frankfort by using Norbourne Way and Forest Court adds to the complexity of driving this portion of Frankfort Avenue. In addition, Forest Court is inaccessible to fire protection vehicles when trains block the crossing. The Plan recommends closing this crossing with a landscape barrier, and straightening Norbourne Way. These improvements are illustrated in Figures 11-7A. Street access to two residential areas is blocked when trains are passing through the neighborhood. In emergency situations, delay of this type can be a critical problem; a derailment would worsen the situation. The Plan recommends constructing a roadway linking North Galt Avenue to an adjacent street leading to Brownsboro Road. The Plan proposes that the emergency access route from the Reservoir Park subdivision to the golf course be better publicized among area residents. Related to these issues is the lack of crossing gates on some neighborhood streets. Installation of these facilities is recommended for Blackburn, Claremont, and St. Joseph's Orphanage. Visibility problems affect numerous intersections in Crescent Hill, often a result of uncontrolled vegetation. The Plan recommends trimming shrubs as required by city ordinance, as well as reducing on-street parking as necessary (Figure 11-7). The intersections of Lexington Road with Cannons Lane and Stilz Avenue experience high accident volumes. Changes to traffic signals and additional street signs are endorsed for these intersections. The intersection of Hite Avenue and Brownsboro Road should be studied to determine if a traffic signal is justified. There are several issues related to the alley system in Crescent Hill. Litter and trash are persistent problems in some areas. Pavement repair, better drainage and improved lighting are needed in some areas. The alley south of Frankfort Avenue linking Ewing and Peterson is heavily traveled and is the scene of numerous accidents. There are several instances where right-of-way has been reserved for alleys, but they were not constructed (see Figure 11-71. The Plan recommends steps to deal with the litter problem. A systematic study of alley needs throughout Crescent Hill is also proposed. This would require a detailed survey of each alley right-of-way, and the involvement of adjacent property owners in determining necessary improvements. C. REVIEW PROCESS 1. Citizen Participation The Crescent Hill Plan is the product of close cooperation between the Planning Commission staff and neighborhood interests, in fulfillment of Section 4B and 4C (a) of Ordinance 22 on citizen participation. The Community Council's Planning Committee was consulted frequently. Planning Commission staff met with the Committee nine times between April and July, 1985. The Committee identified neighborhood problems, suggested alternative solutions, helped develop the Plan's recommendations, reviewed the actions to implement the Plan, and set priorities for those actions. Public meetings were conducted on September 9, 10, and 11, 1985 to receive comments on the draft plan in furtherance of Section 4C (a) of the Neighborhood Plan Ordinance. A general public meeting was held on September 26, 1985 to hear any final comments and to receive approval from the Crescent Hill Community Council. The plan was revised based on comments received at those public meetings. A public hearing conducted by the Board of Aldermen will also provide an opportunity for citizen input in accordance with Section 4C (d) of Ordinance 22.

2. Agency Review The draft Plan was submitted to agencies and organizations affected by the plan, or responsible for implementing portions of it, for their review (Section 4C (b) of Ordinance 22). Comments from these agencies and area residents were evaluated and necessary revisions incorporated in the plan. The Plan is being forwarded for a final checkoff by the Louisville Neighborhood Development Cabinet (Section 4C (c) of Ordinance No. 22). Subsequent to the Cabinet's acceptance of the plan, it will be submitted to the Board of Aldermen for their consideration and adoption. In addition to this process for reviewing the end product, plan implementors such as the Louisville Neighborhood Development Cabinet, Economic Development Cabinet, Public Works Department, etc., have been consulted on the plan's content during its preparation. Introduction INTRODUCTION

The report before you is the Crescent Hill Neighborhood Plan. It 1984-85 and was approved by the Board of Aldermen on . The study area is that portion of the City of Brownsboro Road and Madelle Avenue on the north, the city limits on the east, Lexington Road on the south, and Ewing Avenue on the west. Highlights Readers of the Plan may want a guide to show where to find the parts that interest them. The Executive Summary preceding this Introduction briefly describes the planning process and the Plan's content. The following sections will be of interest to most readers; page numbers for locating them are indicated. 1. Recommendations: The Plan's recommendations consist of written guidelines and an accompanying map. Refer to page 27 (Land Use), page 66 (Transportation) and Figures 1-6 and 11-7 for the Plan's recommendations. 2. Priorities: tables showing the relative importance of plan recommendations and associated implementation measures begin on page 41 (Land Use), and page 76 (Transportation).

3. Implementation Measures: actions and programs to implement the Plan, agencies involved and cost estimates are covered, beginning on page 31 (Land Use) , and page 69 (Transportation). Outline The Crescent Hill Plan is a detailed report addressing land use and transportation needs. The land use and transportation sections have each been broken down into the following components: Needs Assessment describes existing conditions and identifies problems to be addressed by the Plan. Data on the neighborhood is contained or referenced in this section. Projections gives a brief discussion of the neighborhood's probable future, if current trends and government programs continue as they are. Alternatives and Recommendations is divided into two parts, a list of alternatives considered for each neighborhood problem and the recommendations -- guidelines and maps -- for the neighborhood. Implementation identifies actions and programs that should be carried out to bring about the recommendations. Priorities shows the relative importance of plan recommendations.

For more Information: contact members of the project staff (see insidetthe Planninq Commission offices, 625-6230, or members of the crescent Hill omm mu nit^ Council's Planning Committee (see inside front cover). I. Land Use A. NEEDS ASSESSMENT 1. Summary of Findings - - The Crescent Hill neighborhood is predominately residential (39% of land area) with a majority of single-family homes. Housing is generally in very good condition; 90% of structures are rated sound. -- Population has declined steadily since 1960, although the number of dwelling units has increased. The rate of unemployment is lower than the city-wide rate; the level of income is higher than the city-wide average. - - Apartment zoning, which accounts for 29.4% of the study area, permits greater densities than currently exist in most locations. - - The study area has a diverse housing stock; the demand for housing is very stable. -- Residents' demand for neighborhood shopping was compared with the amount of stores in and adjacent to the study area. There appears to be an adequate amount of neighborhood commercial use. - - The study area contains numerous parks and recreation facilities. Most residents are within safe walking distance of a neighborhood park; the area is well served by larger parks. 2. Existing Conditions a. Background Crescent Hill is a large neighborhood in the eastern portion of the City of Louisville. For purposes of this study, the boundaries of Crescent Hill are Ewing Avenue on the west, Brownsboro Road and Madelle Avenue on the north, the city limits on the east, and Lexington Road on the south. This is an area of approximately 1,250 acres. The exact study area boundaries are shown on Figure I-l.* This Report. This document is the Crescent Hill Neighborhood Plan. It is one of a series of detailed studies of Louisville neighborhoods. Neighborhood plans are intended to be approved by the Board of Aldermen and to serve as guides for public and private actions that affect the neighborhood. The goal of this program is to identify actions that will keep city neighborhoods attractive, vital places to live and work. The Executive Summary provides more information on the purpose and uses of a neighborhood plan. Citizen participation was an essential part of the planning process for Crescent Hill. The Planning Committee of the Crescent Hill Community Council met frequently with the Planning Commission staff, to identify problems, evaluate alternatives and make recommendations. In addition, the Planning Committee had developed a preliminary plan for Crescent Hill in 1982. That report is the basis for the Crescent Hill Neighborhood Plan. Other elements of citizen participation in development of this plan are discussed in the Executive Summary. History. Crescent Hill is an old neighborhood. Subdivision of land for development began in the 1870's; construction of this "suburb" began in the 1880's and continued past the turn of the century. Its hilly topography distinguished this area from other sections of Louisville. The difference in elevation also attracted the Louis- ville Water Company, which could increase water pressure by locating

*All Figures (maps) appear after the text, starting on page 42. on high ground. The Water Company, other institutions with large land holdings and Frankfort Avenue with its commuter rail line became distinctive elements of Crescent Hill. Refer to Appendix A for more information on the history of Crescent Hill. b. Existing Land Use Crescent Hill is predominantly a residential area and institutional area; commercial uses are less extensive but also occur in the area. Existing land use is shown in Figure 1-1; the relative proportion of each type of land use is indicated in Table 1-1. The inventory of existing land use was developed from aerial photographs, published directories, and "windshield surveys" (slow, repetitious driving through the area). Single-family homes account for 30% of the developable land in the study area. Duplex or two-family homes occupy roughly 3% of the area; buildings with three or more apartments occupy less than 6%. Considered together, residential uses account for 39% of the study area. Duplex and apartment structures are scattered throughout the area between Brownsboro Road and Grinstead Drive. The balance of the study area is devoted to educational uses (16%), medical services and the Masonic Widows and Orphans Home (15%), utilities (7%), parks (7%), commercial use (1.5%) and churches (1%). These uses are discussed in more detail later in this section. The educational uses include St. Joseph Children's Home (2.30%), South- ern Baptist Theological Seminary (7.40%), Ursuline Campus (4.31%), and other schools (2.30%). If the various institutional uses in Crescent Hill (educational, medical, utilities) and park space are combined, they represent 46.5% of the developable land. This statistic indicates the significance of the various institutions to Crescent Hill. Vacant property in the study area is limited to approximately 23 acres or 2% of the land area. There are a few buildable vacant lots, scattered throughout the residential portions of the study area. One of the larger single vacant parcels is located on the northside of Grinstead Drive between 1-64 and Peter- son Avenue. Another area of vacant land is on the west side of Fenley Avenue between Claremont and Blackburn Avenues. Street rights-of-way account for approximately 10.5% of the total land use and the remaining 1% of the land use is comprised of general offices, government, other public and semi-public land, and parking. c. Housing Characteristics Crescent Hill had 8,689 residents in 1980, the most recent Census. Much of the neighborhood is occupied by 3,692 dwelling units that house these persons.* The study area averages 2.5 persons per household. Single-family housing is predominant, accounting for 60% of the dwellings in the study area. By comparison, the city-wide ratio for single-family housing is 69%. Appendix F provides data on housing characteristics by Census Tract. Apartments in the study area are located in converted single-family homes and small multi- family structures (4 apartments) as well as apartment complexes. The largest apartment complexes in the neighborhood were Chatsworth Park with 153 units, Carriage House North with 92 units, and Eagles Eyrie with 80 units. The institutions in the area also had large numbers of "rental" type units or group quarters notably the Masonic Home, Seminary Village, Ursuline College, Southern Baptist Seminary. The intensity of residential development is measured by "density", the ratio of the number of dwelling units to land area. Density is normally expressed in terms of dwellings per acre. Overall, Cres- cent Hill falls in the medium density range -- 5-12 dwellings per acre. Representative blocks throughout the study area were measured to determine the amount of residential land use, and Census data on the number of dwelling units was collected. This analysis showed densities range from 2 to 25 units per acre. In the Cochran Hill

*Unless otherwise noted, data is based on the 1980 Census. Table 1-1 - Existing Land Use (1984)

Land Use Category percent of Total Area Map Symbol Category Name Single Family 30.19 Duplex 3.14 ~ulti-family (3 or more units) 5.78

Residential Sub-total Manufacturing light Manufacturing heavy ran sport at ion Communications & Utilities* Wholesale Commercial Retail goods Retail general Of £ice Government Medical services** Educational*** Religious Public parks Other public/semi-public Vacant Parking Right-of-way Total 100.00

Acreage of Major Institutional Uses ACRES *Louisville Water Company 89.0 **Masonic Widows and Orphans Home and Infirmary 179.4 Medical Services 1.0 ***St. Joseph Children's Home 28.0 Southern Baptist Theological Seminary 90.0 Ursuline College 52.0 Other Schools 28.3

Source: Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission, March, 1985. area, density is between 2 and 4 units per acre. Excluding apartment complexes, areas west of Hillcrest typically have 7 to 10 units per acre. Reservoir Park subdivision is a lower density area, ranging from 4 to 6 units per acre. Apartment complexes in the study area generally are built to a density of 20 units per acre. The rate of owner-occupancy in Crescent Hill is 49%: by comparison, the city-wide average is 56%. There was a very slight decline in the number of owner-occupied units between 1970 and 1980; the percentage decline was more significant (from 52% in 1970 to 49%), because of construction of new apartment units. Recent apartment construction has occurred along Brownsboro Road and on Clark Place. Owner-occupancy is considered beneficial to a neighborhood's long term vitality. Resident home owners are more concerned with maintaining a desirable residential atmosphere and protecting their investment than are absentee owners. Better property maintenance and an increased commitment to improving the neighborhood are anticipated when homes are owner-occupied. It should be noted that the apartment uses in Crescent Hill are well maintained and can be considered a stable element in the housing stock. Apartment uses associated with institutions, especially the Seminary, are not likely to experience inadequate maintenance or become a blighting influence on their surroundings. Table 1 in Appendix F shows tract level owner occupancy data. Over 55% of the dwelling units in Crescent Hill was constructed prior to 1939. The comparable figure for the city as a whole is 42%. The housing stock is older near the inter-urban line which ran along Frankfort Avenue and formed the spine of this early "commuter" neighborhood. Appendix F, Table 2 provides data on age of housing. The development of the neighborhood still continues, however; 11.4% of the units were constructed during the past decade. Reuse potential and vacant acreage will probably continue to allow growth of the residential base in this neighborhood. The low vacancy rate and positive neighborhood identity reinforce this potential. d. Commercial and Industrial Uses Commercial land uses (including vacant commercial structures and parking) accounted for only 1.8% of the total land area in Crescent Hill. This category of land use can be broken down into four subcategories based on user and product characteristics: neighborhood, regional, services and offices. Figure 1-2 shows the location of the various types of commercial uses in Crescent Hill. Commer- cial uses in the area can be described as two intermittent commercial strips (Brownsboro Road and Frankfort Avenue) with larger anchors of commercial activity outside the neighborhood. Within the neighborhood these strips of commercial use include all the commercial subcategories. Neighborhood commercial uses are retail stores that serve the - shopping needs of nearby residents by providing non-durable personal consumption items such as food, medicine, liquor and clothing. Bars and restaurants are also considered neighborhood commercial uses. In 1985 there were 31 of these uses in Crescent Hill, in addition 15 of these uses were located immediately adjacent to the neighborhood (on the opposite side of the streets forming the study area's boundary). Major areas of neighborhood-serving commercial uses exist further west along Brownsboro Road and east along both Browns- boro Road and Frankfort Avenue. Aside from a small grocery on Stilz Avenue all commercial uses in the neighborhood are located along Brownsboro Road and Frankfort Avenue. Appendix B lists the number and types of neighborhood commercial uses in and adjacent to the Crescent Hill neighborhood. Regional commercial uses are retail stores that draw customers from a wide area and are not dependent on Crescent Hill alone for support population. Regional commercial uses deal primarily in durable goods, items which have a long life and/or entail a major expenditure such as automobiles, furniture or appliances, or specialty items such as jewelry or orthopedic braces. Gasoline stations are included in this category due to the traffic pattern orientation they exhibit. In 1985 there were 11 regional commercial uses and an additional 5 uses immediately adjacent to the neighborhood. Commercial services include uses such as barber shops, beauticians, dry cleaners, laundromats, banks and repair services. Most of these uses are neighborhood oriented, but may draw on larger areas for support. The land use survey of the neighborhood in March of 1985 found 30 service commercial uses with concentrations in the northeast and southeast corners of the neighborhood and along Frankfort between Hite and Stilz Avenues. Office uses include professional offices such as lawyers, architects, engineers or accountants; (medical offices are not included). Ten office uses are located in Crescent Hill, most are in the Frankfort Terrace office building east of Cannons Lane on Frankfort Avenue. e. Community Facilities Community facilities serving the study area are listed in Table 1-2; the location of these facilities is shown on Figure 1-1. The Crescent Hill study area contains three public parks, and is served by two others, Cherokee and Seneca Parks. The facilities provided in each park, its acreage and usage level are inventoried in Table 1-3. The total acreage of parks within the study area is 124.5. Cherokee and Seneca Parks have a combined area of 742.6 acres of land for public use. The Louisville Water Company's reservoir has paths around the settling basins, that are frequently used for walking and jogging. The large open space and the ornamental buildings of the Water Company add to the neighborhood's scenic resources and passive recreation opportunities. Crescent Hill Park, which is Water Company land and is adjacent to the Reservoir, occupies 6% of the land area in the study area. The principal recreation facilities in Crescent Hill Park are the nine hole golf course, tennis courts and the newly renovated "bubble" swimming pool. Schools in the study area also provide recreational facilities for the community after normal school hours. Barret Middle School and Sacred Heart Academy have gymnasiums that are used for league sports as well as informal games. Board of Education property surrounding the Peterson-Dumesnil House is frequently used for recreation. Metro Parks uses land at Barret Middle and Chenoweth Elementary Schools for its summer recreation programs. The Ursuline campus and Seminary grounds are used frequently by area residents for walking, bicycling and jogging. School auditoriums are used as meeting places for various groups and some minor productions are also staged at the larger auditoriums. The Crescent Hill study area has five major churches as well as some small congregations. These are strong social centers for the area residents and provide additional recreation facilities and social services. St. Mark's Episcopal and Crescent Hill Presbyterian have outdoor recreation facilities that are available to residents. The playground equipment and basketball court provided by these churches are often in use. The Louisville Free Public Library's Crescent Hill branch is located at Frankfort and Birchwood Avenues. Table 1-2 Community Facilities Public Libraries Crescent Hill Branch 2762 Frankfort Avenue Community Centers Crescent Hill Womans Club 2461 Grinstead Drive Peterson-~umesnilHouse 301 S. Peterson Avenue Schools Chenoweth Elementary School 3622 Brownsboro Road Field Elementary School Gardiner Avenue & Sacred Heart Lane Holy Spirit Parochial Elementary School 322 Cannons Lane Barret Middle School 2561 Grinstead Drive Sacred Heart Academy 3175 Lexington Road Southern Baptist Theological Seminary 2825 Lexington Road Ursuline Model School 3121 Lexington Road Ursuline Campus, Metroversity Lexington Road Social Services Crescent Hill Community Ministries 1860 Frankfort Avenue Masonic Widows and Orphans Home and Infirmary 3701 Frankfort Avenue St. Josephs Childrens Home 2823 Frankfort Avenue

Source: Land Use Survey, Planning Commission, 1985; Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Master Action Plan; Metro Parks Department and Planning Commission, 1982. Table 1-3 Parks and Recreation Facilities In the Study area Crescent Hill Park 77.0 acres ~olfcourse walkways Swimming Pool water fountains Tennis courts restrooms Wading Pool trash receptacles Extremely heavy usage level.

Kennedy Court Minipark 0.8 acres Benches Playground Equipment Walkways Trash Receptacles Heavy usage level Louisville Water Company 46.0 acres Walkways Open Space Moderate usage Level Near the Study Area Seneca Park 333.3 acres Softball/baseball fields Sledding hills Full basketball courts Soccer fields Benches Tennis courts Golf course Trash receptacles Bridal Paths Volleyball area Picnic Tables Walkways Playground equipment Water Fountains Res trooms Other Athletic fields Extremely heavy usage level Cherokee Park 409.3 acres Archery Range Picnic Tables C srills Softball/Baseball fields Playground ~~ui~iient Half and full Basketball Courts Res trooms Benches Shelter House Fishing areas Sledding Hills Golf Course Tennis Courts Hiking Trails/walkways Trash Receptacles Bridle Paths Wading Pools Horseshoe Pits Water Fountains Pavilion Other Athletic Fields Extremely heavy usage level Louisville Water Company (Zorn Avenue) 24.2 acres Playing fields Source: Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Master Action Plan, Metro Parks Department and Planning Commission, 1982. f. Zoning Louisville's first zoning regulations were adopted in 1931. The initial zoning of Crescent Hill was similar to the zoning pattern that exists today. Residential densities permitted at that time exceeded the density of existing development. The stability of single family development in Crescent Hill has not encouraged redevelopment at higher densities. However, conversion of single- family homes to apartment use has occurred. Plats that created most of the street and lot pattern in the study area were recorded prior to enactment of zoning. Development that does not meet minimum lot size or setback requirements is due to this sequence of events. Major Changes in Zoninq. Over the years the zoning district pattern has changed somewhat in the study area. The principal change has been to reduce permissible residential densities; a few commercial to residential changes have also occurred. The commercial zoning districts existing along the south side of Frankfort Avenue were established by the original 1931 zoning ordinance. The area east of Ewing, west of Birchwood and north of Frankfort Avenues has had tracts of land rezoned from the single-family district to allow apartment complexes and multi-family housing. Small tracts of land between St. Josephs Children's Home and the Masonic Home also have been rezoned to allow for multi-family uses. Commercial zoning and higher density apartment districts have developed along both sides of Brownsboro Road in the northwestern portion of the study area. The only areawide rezoning in Crescent Hill was for areas worst hit by the April 3, 1974 tornado. Many homes in the vicinity of Cres- cent, Kennedy and Birchwood Avenues south of Frankfort were destroyed or damaged. Existing zoning at that time was the R-6 classification which allows multi-family housing. City officials as well as concerned residents felt that redevelopment at R-6 densities would not be in accordance with the neighborhood's character. In January of 1975 the Board of Aldermen approved the rezoning (Docket No. 9-129-74) of the area bounded by Frankfort, Stilz, Grinstead and Peterson, and vacant property in the Reservoir Park Subdivision. R-5 and a new classification R-5A Residential-Apartment were applied to these areas to preserve the single-family and low intensity apartment character of the neighborhood. Existing zoning as of March, 1985 in the Crescent Hill study area is shown in Figure 1-3. Over 96% of the study area is zoned residential and the remainder is zoned for commercial use. Table 1-4 shows the extent of each zoning district.

Table 1-4 EXISTING ZONING Zoning Acreage and Percentage of Total C-1 Commercial 28.0 acres 2.2% C-2 Commercial 19.7 acres 1.6% Total Commercial 47.7 acres -3.8% R-1 Residential 122.1 acres R-5 Residential 723.6 acres R-5A Residential/Apartment 242.6 acres R-6 Apartment 68.0 acres R-7 Apartment 45.7 acres R-8 Apartment/Office 14.2 acres R- 8A Apartment 1.8 acres Total Residential 1218.0 acres Total

Residential Zoning. R-5 and R-5A are the predominant residential classifications in the study area. R-6, R-7 and R-8 Apartment districts are found in the northwestern portion of the study area and along Frankfort Avenue and Grinstead Drive. R-5 Residential zoning accounts for the largest amount of land in the study area (57%) and occurs predominantly in the southern portion of the study area. The R-5 Residential District allows single family homes; apartments are not permitted in this zone. The maximum permissible density is seven dwelling units per acre. This translates into a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet; however, existing lots that do not meet the minimum lot size criterion can still be used for a single-family home. Only one house is permitted on each lot in the R-5 district. The R-5A Residential/Apartment District allows single-family houses, duplexes and apartments; no commercial uses are permitted. The maximum density for the R-5A classification is 12 dwelling units per acre or 3,625 square feet of lot area for each dwelling unit. The number of apartments allowed on a given site depends on the lot size. A typical lot on Birchwood Avenue (50 x 225) would be allowed to have up to 3 apartments. The R-6 Apartment District allows single family homes, duplexes and multi-family apartments; no commercial uses are permitted in this zone. The maximum density per acre for R-6 is seventeen dwelling units or 2500 square feet of lot area for each unit. For purposes of comparison, the typical Birchwood lot would be allowed to have 4 apartments under R-6 zoning. The R-7 and R-8A Apartment Districts permit residential uses similar to the R-6 zone, but at higher densities. Maximum density under R-7 zoning is 35 dwelling units per acre, or 1,250 square feet of lot area per unit. R-8A allows 58 dwellings per acre or one unit per 750 square feet. Again for purposes of comparison, the lot on Birchwood would be allowed to have 9 apartments under R-7 zoning, or 15 apartments under R-8A zoning. The R-8 Apartment-Office district permits professional office uses, in addition to residential uses as allowed in the R-8A zone. Commercial Zoninq. The C-1 and C-2 Commercial Districts occur within Crescent Hill. C-1 zoning allows offices and a broad range of service and retail uses. he-C-2 Commercial District permits all the C-1 uses and also allows wholesaling, auto repair, taverns, theaters and other uses. High density residential uses are also permitted in these districts. There is no industrial zoning in the study area. g. Structural Conditions I Data on the condition of structures in the study area was collected by means of a "windshield survey" slowly driving each street and noting structural conditions on a map. The rating only addresses building exteriors; no interior inspection occurred. As a result structures receiving good ratings may actually need major interior improvements, such as plumbing, heating or electrical system replacement. Residential structures were rated using a five-category classification system; a three-category system is used for non- residential structures. The results of the survey are shown on Figure 1-4 and are summarized in Table 1-5. Definitions of the various structural classifications are given in Appendix C. Residential Structures. Houses in the Crescent Hill Neighborhood senerallv are in very qood condition: 90% are sound ("a"), 9.5% need only minor repairs ("bS) . The ''a'' and "b" structural classifications constitute "standard" housing. For comparison purposes, other neighborhoods have the following percentages of standard housing: North Iroquois community, 96%; Southern Parkway community, 91%. Less than one percent (0.5%) of the residential structures in the study area is rated "c" sound, but needing major repairs. These houses need extensive work, more than normal maintenance. A single "d" and no "e" rated structures were identified in the windshield survey of Crescent Hill.

I Non-Residential Structures. A large percentage of non-residential I structures is in the highest classification, 95%. Only eight of 147 I structures are in "depreciating" classification. There are no "substandard" ratings for commercial uses in the study area. Table 1-5 Condition of Structures Residential Structures

Map Ratings Number of Symbol Classification Structures Percentage Sound 2,049 Sound, Minor Repair 228 Sound, Major Repair 10 Deteriorated 1 Dilapidated 8 on-Residential Structures

Map Ratings Number of Symbol Classification Structures Percentage A Standard 139 95% B Depreciating 8 5 % C Substandard 8 --- Source: Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission, March, 1985. h. Historic Resources The Crescent Hill study area includes a large historic district listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The boundaries of this district are shown on Figure 1-4; there are approximately 1,500 structures inside the district. Most of the homes are of frame construction. A variety of architectural styles is represented: Queen Anne, Italianate, Greek Revival, other Victorian styles, bungalows and shotgun cottages. In addition to the historic district, six sites in Crescent Hill are locally designated landmarks. These sites are indicated on Figure 1-4. Financial incentives are offered for appropriate rehabilitation of income-producing properties in a National Register district. Local landmark status entails a review and approval process prior to changing the exterior of a designated property. 3. Neighborhood Profile Crescent Hill neighborhood had all or part of seven Census Tracts within its boundaries in 1980. The boundary of the neighborhood for purposes of this plan does not coincide with the Neighborhood Statistical Area developed by the Census Bureau. Data on the area north of Brownsboro Road is included in a set of addendum tables. Tract level characteristics are presented in the Appendix tables. Figure 1-5 shows the 1980 Census Tract boundaries for the area. It should be noted that prior to 1980 Census Tracts 76.01, 76.02 and 76.03 were all part of one Census Tract (76). a. Population The Crescent Hill neighborhood had a population of 8,689 persons in 1980 according to the Census. This represented a decline of 7% since 1970 and 11% since 1960. Louisville overall lost 23.6% of its population during the 1960-1980 period; Crescent Hill has been more successful than the average city neighborhood in retaining its population. Two of the seven Census Tracts wholely or partially within the neighborhood gained population from 1960 to 1980. The gains in population in Census Tract 87 (part) can be attributed solely to gains in student population at the Southern Baptist Seminary due to a quirk in the way such students were enumerated in 1980. Previous census counts considered students as members of their parents' household if they lived in group quarters. The 1980 Census enumerated them at the location where they were in school. Appendix D, Tables 1 and 2 detail population change at the Census Tract level since 1960. I The percent of persons under age 18 dropped from 23.3% in 1970 to 16.6% in 1980 while those age 65 or over grew from 15.5% of the population in 1970 to 17.6% in 1980. The median age of neighborhood residents was 30.0 years, slightly lower than the citywide median of 31.8 years (see Table 5 in Appendix Dl. Household and family size in Crescent Hill were 2.19 and 2.77 persons respectively, both of which were lower than the citywide rates of 2.48 and 3.16 persons respectively. Although the neighborhood experienced a nearly threefold increase in percent black from 1970 to 1980 (0.5% to 1.4%) the area is still overwhelmingly white. Citywide, blacks made up 28.2% of the total population. b. Employment The employment of residents of Crescent Hill is highly concentrated in white collar occupations (75.4% in 1980) and has been since at least 1960. Blue collar employment has declined steadily since 1960 from 21.1% to 15.5% in 1980 while service workers have risen from 6.0% to 9.1%. The rate of white collar employment in Crescent Hill is nearly 1% times the overall City of Louisville rate (51.8%) while both blue collar and service employment percentages are about half the Louisville rate. The unemployment rate for Crescent Hill residents, 3.7%, is much lower than for the City of Louisville, 9.9%. The area has had consistently lower rates of unemployment over the past three decades. Further, labor force participation ratios for men, women and both sexes were higher for the neighborhood than for the City in 1980. Appendix E provides Census Tract level information for the Crescent Hill area. c. Income Median family income for the Crescent Hill area was significantly higher than the median for all of Louisville, $18,318 versus $15,981 for the City of Louisville but the mean was only about $1,000 higher. At the Census Tract level several areas show extremely high incomes, particularly Census Tract 87 (refer to Appendix E); however, the portion of this Census Tract within Crescent Hill probably has substantially lower income levels than the tract average due to the fact that its residents are seminary students. d. Housing Supply There has been a 10.4% gain in dwelling units in the Crescent Hill neighborhood from 1960 to 1980. The net change of 329 units reflected losses of 24 units in Census Tract 78 and 71 units in Census Tract 87. Census Tract 76.01 grew by 46.5% adding 330 units during the two decades while Census Tracts 77 (part) and 79 added 39 and 52 units respectively. Vacancy rates were low, 4.1%; rental units made up 80 of the 142 vacant units and 16 units were for sale. Median rent ($174) was $34 higher in Crescent Hill than citywide and the median value of owner occupied units in Crescent Hill ($41,700) was 55% higher than Louisville's median. Of the total year round dwelling units in the neighborhood 49% were owner-occupied, 47% renter occupied and 4.1% vacant. Rental units and owner units are about evenly split when vacant units are added into the totals. In 1970 56.2% of the units had one unit at their address and in 1980 64.2% did. It appears that multiple dwelling unit structures are being added into this total if they have separate addresses for each unit. This Census item formerly was used to identify single-family homes. In fact most unit growth 1970-1980 was apartment and the one unit at address cannot be interpreted as representing "single family" homes. One factor influencing the housing supply was the 1974 tornado which severly impacted this neighborhood west of Stilz Avenue. Most homes were rebuilt, but a few were not. When renovations were made some homes were evidently converted from multiple units to single units (or fewer multiple units). Census Tract 79 was the most severely impacted part of the neighborhood. Total dwelling units fell by 25 units, but one unit at address dwelling units rose by 28 units. Housing data is presented in Appendix F. e. Education Crescent Hill's population has a much higher education level than the average for the City of Louisville. According to the Neigh- borhood Statistics Report 78.9% of those persons age 25 and over were high school graduates opposed to only 55.5% citywide. The percent of persons age 25 and over who had 4 or more years of college in Crescent Hill was 41.4%, as opposed to 13.3% citywide (see Appendix E) . f. Crime Appendix G presents 1981 crime rates for the Louisville portion of entire Census Tracts partially or totally within Crescent Hill. Most of the areas had rates about 73-74% of Louisville's for all major crimes with the exception of Census Tract 86 which had a rate above Louisville's averages for robberies, assaults, burglaries, larcenies, and a major crime total rate 161% of Louisville's. The explanation for this "high" rate of crime is the inclusion of Cherokee Park in this Census Tract; there is no resident population to offset the incidents reported in the park. If allowances were made for the temporary population of the park, this rate would fall 4. Analysis a. Residents' Perceptions and Prior Study The opinions and perceptions of Crescent Hill residents are an important source of information about the neighborhood. The Plan- ning Committee of the Crescent Hill Community Council provided input on residents' perceptions in a problem identification session conducted April 25th, 1985. The results of this session are presented in Appendix H. The specific issues and problems discussed by the Committee were used in formulating the problems and issues statement (part 6. of this section). The preliminary planning report written by the Committee in 1982 was also used to identify problems and issues as well as recommendations. The 1982 report identified specific improvements and topics needing further study, in three functional areas. Zoning and land use recommendations dealt with improving commercial areas and preventing their expansion providing additional parking for stores, monitoring zoning issues and opposing the Frankfort Avenue busway. In the area of transportation and public works, the 1982 study recommended monitoring traffic congestion, billboard expansion, pedestrian safety, truck routes and off-street parking needs. Specific transportation improvements that were proposed include: upgrading the intersection of Frankfort and Stilz Avenues; paving alleys and providing sidewalks where lacking; improving emergency access for areas isolated by the railroad; synchronized traffic signals on Frankfort Avenue; etc. Several beautification recommendations were made for Frankfort Avenue and for the neighborhood in general. Along Frankfort Avenue, unique bus stops, improved street furniture, a landscaping plan, improvements in the railroad right-of-way and removal of utility lines are recommended. For the balance of Crescent Hill, boundary identification, street trees and a design advisory board are proposed. b. Land Use The Crescent Hill Neighborhood is a mature residential area. The low density, residential character of the neighborhood is a desirable element of Crescent Hill. Although the apartment complexes are not consistent with the predominant development pattern of single- family homes, their height and setbacks are generally similar to other housing in Crescent Hill. Most development in the study area is well maintained. The study area has few instances of "land use conflicts" -- nuisances created by adjacent, incompatible land uses. These conflicts are experienced on Frankfort Avenue where commercial and residential uses are interspersed. Some traffic, noise and visual nuisances occur in this area. Shopping areas along Frankfort Avenue are in need of improvement. Residents identified a need for more commercial use that is compatible with the neighborhood. Some commercial development in the study area detracts from the neighborhood's appearance. Physical improvements to the facades, signs, and the rear of structures would help the appearance of the shopping areas. Street furniture and landscaping could also be provided to improve the commercial appearance. Vacant land in Crescent Hill is minimal, approximately 2% of the neighborhood. Some of the property included as vacant in this calculation is actually yard space, where residents own more than one building lot. Institutional uses with considerable amounts of vacant land may be developed in the future. The type of development and its design will have a significant effect on Crescent Hill. c. Zoning Existing zoning in the study area was compared with existing land use to identify conflicts and inconsistencies. Nonconforming Uses. Nonconforming uses are land uses of a type or intensity that are no longer permitted in the zoning district in which they exist. onc conform in^ uses were in existence prior to the establishment of zoning in 1931 or prior to a zoning change affecting the area. Although not in accordance with the zoning regulations, nonconforming uses may legally continue. However, expansion of a nonconforming structure or new use is prohibited. Commercial uses in residential zones are one type of nonconforming use that occurs in the study area. There are approximately five instances of commercial uses in residential zones; they are scattered throughout the study area. More intensive uses in a less intensive zone (such as commercial uses in a residential zone) may have a negative effect on the less intensive use. Another form of nonconforming use is multi-family residential in single-family residential zoning districts. As with commercial uses in residential zones, some multi-family uses predate single-family regulations. In some instances, apartments may have been added despite zoning restrictions, to generate additional income. Noncon- forming duplex and multi-family uses occur in larger homes that are scattered throughout the neighborhood. The land use maps are not entirely accurate in indicating the number of dwelling units in individual structures, because of the limitations of the windshield survey. The land use survey would indicate approximately 100 instances of multi-family use in areas zoned single-family. Residential Uses in Commercial Zones. Under the Zoning District Regulations, residential uses are permitted in commercial zones, as long as they meet the density and floor area limits specified for that zone. The C-1 zone, which is the predominant commercial zone in the study area, allows high density residential development (R-7 Apartment). Although residential uses within commercial zones do not fall in the category of nonconforming use, their future use and the character of the surrounding area are affected by commercial zoning. Such zoning does not support the residential character of the area. Assuming that residential use is desired in a particular location, commercial zoning has a destablizing effect. Commercial zoning would allow individual property owners to significantly change the scale, character, and appearance of a particular site. The potential for nuisances to adjacent residential uses is significant in the C-1 zone, which allows a wide range of commercial uses. Residential uses in commercial zones occur along Frankfort Avenue. Residential Density. The five residential zoning districts in the study area -- R-5, R-5A, R-6, R-7, R-8 -- permit different residential-densities. Existing densities were compared with permitted densities, to identify inconsistencies. R-5 zoning permits single- family homes at a density of 7.26 dwelling units per acre, the density resulting from the minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. In Crescent Hill, the density for areas zoned R-5 falls between the range of 2.0 units per acre and 11.3 units per acre. The areas with the higher densities have small lots with less than 6,000 square feet and several nonconforming apartment buildings. The zoning regulations permit the use of these preexisting smaller lots for single-family homes; therefore, the 6,000 square foot criterion is not an impediment to the use of property in Crescent Hill. Given the single-family character of areas zoned R-5, this is the appropriate zoning district. The R-5A district permits single-family homes and apartments to a density of 12.01 units per acre, with a minimum of 2,500 square feet of lot area for each dwelling unit. Areas in Crescent Hill zoned R-5A have lower densities, typically 4.3 to 10.5 units per acre. The principal locations of the R-5A zone are the Masonic Widows and Orphans Home and the area bounded by Frankfort Avenue, Birchwood Avenue, Grinstead Drive, and Stilz Avenue. The land use survey indicates that R-5A is an appropriate zone for most of this area. One area north of Rowland Avenue between Galt and Franck Avenues is zoned R-5A but is a single-family residential area with a density of 8.1 units per acre. The R-6 zone permits single-family homes and apartments to a density of 17.4 units per acre, with a minimum of 2,500 square feet of lot area for each dwelling unit. Areas in Crescent Hill zoned R-6 have .significantly lower densities, typically 4.3 to 10.5 units per acre. Under R-6, smaller lots in these areas could be used for duplexes; larger lots would be allowed to have 4 units. The land use survey indicates that these areas are predominantly used for single-family homes, although structures with two or more units are scattered throughout the areas zoned R-6. R-7 zoning allows residential use to a density of 34.84 units per acre, or 1,250 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit. R-7 districts are scattered throughout the Crescent Hill neighborhood and appear to be the appropriate zoning for the existing uses and densities. The R-8 district permits single-family homes, apartments, and professional offices to a density of 58.1 units per acre or 750 square feet of lot area for each dwelling unit. In Crescent Hill, these zones are located on Brownsboro Road and east of 1-64 south of Grinstead. Most of these areas, except for the property by 1-64, are developed for apartment use. R-8A zoning allows single-family homes and apartments at a density of 58.1 units per acre with 750 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit. This zone is located on George Rogers Clark Place at Galt Avenue for a school building that was converted into luxury apartments. This zoning is appropriate for the existing use. d. Housing The total number of dwelling units in the study area increased slightly from 1970 to 1980 (6% or 200 dwelling units). The increase resulted from the construction of apartments. The rate of owner- occupancy declined from 1970 to 1980 (52.2% to 49.0%) which indicates that a slight shift toward rental units in the neighborhood is occurring. Vacancy remained constant in the Crescent Hill neighborhood over the same ten-year period. Some conversion of homes with apartments back to single-family use has occurred also. This demonstrates Crescent Hill's continuing viability as a single-family neighborhood. The study area is basically very stable in its demand for housing. Exterior structural conditions are generally very good in the study area. Only a handful of structures appears to be in a state of decline. Most of these structures are located in the western section of the study area. Although few in number, declining structures should be monitored. Corrective actions taken now can prevent a trend of housing decline and disinvestment. The age of the housing stock and frame construction increase the need for maintenance; if not provided, decline will occur. The Crescent Hill neighborhood is well served by support facilities: schools, parks, churches, frequent bus service and some neighborhood shopping. In addition, the study area is located centrally in the city, and is served by major streets and the expressway system. These are important elements in maintaining healthy residential areas. The type of housing available in the study area is diverse. There are single-family homes, apartment complexes, single-family homes which have been converted to multi-family use, and student housing facilities. Apart from the Masonic Home, there is no housing for the elderly in Crescent Hill. e. Demand for Regional, Office and Service Commercial. Demand for these three categories of commercial use is regional in nature although some personal services such as barbers or beauticians may be neighborhood oriented. There has not been an areawide assessment of the need for these categories of commercial use in the Louisville metropolitan area. Such a study would allow the comparison of Crescent Hill's propensity for such development with other areas and develop an estimate of the potential "share" of total development that might occur there. Positive elements of the neighborhood which might reinforce locational decisions by these commercial uses include the two major arterials, Brownsboro Road and Frankfort Avenue, and to a lesser extent the minor arterials. The 1-64 interchange and the intersection of Grinstead Drive and Lexington Road is a high access area, but land available for development is limited. Other attractors for these uses include nearby St. Matthews business district, the seminaries in the area and the affluence of the residents of the neighborhood and surrounding areas. Overall, vacant land zoned for such uses is minimal and vacant commercial space is limited. f. Demand for Neighborhood Commercial I Neighborhood commercial uses serve a limited geographic area. This allows an evaluation of the adequacy of neighborhood-serving commercial uses in an area based on the socio-economic characteristics of the residents. Neighborhood commercial uses provide goods that are needed on a weekly or even daily basis. If such goods are available in a neighborhood at appropriate quality and prices, residents will make a majority of these purchases in local stores. A list of neighborhood commercial uses in and immediately adjacent to the Crescent Hill neighborhood, showing square footage and annual sales capacity estimates, is provided in Appendix B Tables 1 and 2. Figure 1-2 shows the location of these uses. Concentrations of neighborhood-serving commercial uses are found along Brownsboro Road and Frankfort Avenue in intermittent clusters forming a "weak" commercial strip. The 1985 survey found 31 neighborhood serving commercial uses within Crescent Hill with approximately 61,350 square feet of floor area. Using data on average sales volume per square foot of retail space for this region of the country, an estimate of sales capacity for Crescent Hill stores was developed. Estimated annual sales of neighborhood commercial uses is $9.4 million. An additional 29,350 square feet of floor area is immediately adjacent to the neighborhood with an estimated $5.5 million in sales capacity. The area contains a good mix of uses but apparently falls short of meeting the demand for such facilities within its boundaries. Demand for neighborhood commercial use is based on estimates of total personal consumption expenditure as shown in Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix I. Crescent Hill residents have an estimated 1980 per capita income of $8,349 and personal consumption expenditure of $6,520 per capita for a total of $53.9 million. Of this $53.9 million total an estimated $18.8 million was spent for non-durable goods (other than gasoline) including $10.7 million for food and $3.4 million for clothing. Of the estimated $14.9 million in total sales capacity in and adjacent to Crescent Hill $7.0 million in and $4.3 million adjacent to the neighborhood were for food related sales. Within the area there is evidently a $3.7 million shortfall in the supply of food related sales capacity. This shortfall is met by the supermarket west of the study area on Brownsboro Road, and the food stores located east of the study area. It appears that neighborhood residents must go outside the study area for some of their routine shopping needs. However, the major shopping developments along Shelbyville Road constitute one of the principal retail areas of Jefferson County, and they are readily accessible from Crescent Hill. The shortfall in neighborhood shopping would have the greatest impact on persons who lack private transportation. Additional factors should be considered when assessing the adequacy of neighborhood commercial use. The analysis described above does not take into account the amount of competition from specific types of stores, and the quality and prices of goods offered. In addition, the Brownsboro and Frankfort corridors serve more than just Crescent Hill. Several adjacent neighborhoods rely on stores concentrated on these two streets. This may generate demand for additional commercial development in or near Crescent Hill. In summary, there is a considerable amount of shopping available in Crescent Hill. Although residents cannot satisfy all their shopping needs locally, retaining commercial services at existing levels should not create a hardship situation. The disposable income of Crescent Hill residents and the surrounding area may create an opportunity for improving existing retail uses and providing additional shops. g. Parks and Recreation The Crescent Hill neighborhood contains three parks and is served by two parks, Seneca and Cherokee, located outside the neighborhood. The degree to which the neighborhood is served by recreation facilities is analyzed below. The analysis considers two types of parks, "neighborhood park/playground" and "community park/playfield." Neighborhood Park/Playground. This category includes any park below 12.5 acres in size. This type of park typically includes playground I equipment, benches and at least one active sport activity area such

as a basketball court or baseball/softball field. Small parks in I the category of "neighborhood park/playgroundW are more accurately described as "miniparks." Larger parks in this category combine the facilities of a minipark with an active sports area. Additional requirements for a "neighborhood park/playgroundl'include safe convenient access for pedestrians, particularly young children, and shaded "park like" areas for passive recreation and unsupervised play. Two of the four parks located in the Crescent Hill neighborhood are "neighborhood park/playgrounds." They are Crescent Hill Minipark and Kennedy Court Minipark. In addition, parks in the "community park/playfieldW category (12.5 to 100 acres in size) and in the "major urban park" category (over 100 acres in size) serve the same function as "neighborhood park/playgrounds" for those people that live within 4 mile. Crescent Hill Park, Cherokee Park and Seneca Park all serve portions of the neighborhood as a neighborhood park/playground. Further discussion of "community park/playfieldsl' is provided below. To be considered adequately served, a resident must live within 4 mile of a neighborhood park/playground. This 4 mile radius was applied to Crescent Hill to determine which areas, if any, are inadequately served. For the most part the Crescent Hill neighborhood is adequately served by neighborhood park!playground facilities. This is especially true in the residential areas surrounding the Louisville Water Company's reservoir. Also close by are the Crescent Hill Minipark, Kennedy Court Minipark and Crescent Hill Park. One area was identified as being substantially outside the 4 mile service radius of any park. This area is roughly bounded by Brownsboro Road on the north, Hite Avenue on the east, Frankfort Avenue on the south and Ewing Avenue on the west. Portions of this area are within mile of Bingham Park, located in the Clifton neighborhood at Brownsboro Road and Corral Avenue. Recreational service in the area also might be provided by other than publicly owned facilities which are discussed in a separate section below. One problem that does hamper recreational service throughout the Crescent Hill neighborhood is the problem of crossing busy streets. Busy streets and related safety problems reduce accessibility to neighborhood park/playgrounds by the elderly and young who are most likely to use this type of facility. Community Park/Playfield. This category includes any park that is from 12.5 to 100 acres in size. Parks in this category generally have facilities oriented to vehicular access although many patrons choose to walk; the service radius is one mile. Crescent Hill Park is the only community park inside the study area. Cherokee and Seneca Parks, which are major urban parks, also serve as community park/playfield for those residents within a 1-mile radius. Because of the emphasis on accessibility to community park/playfields by cars, the service radius is probably larger in reality. Analysis of the neighborhood using this 1-mile service radius revealed that the entire neighborhood is well served. Crescent Hill, Seneca and Cherokee Parks all contain facilities that help them to adequately serve as community park/playfields. The Metro Parks Department has indicated, however, that there may be a need for additional softball/baseball fields in the eastern section of the city. Other Facilities. The above analysis considered only Metro Parks Department facilities; however, there are other recreation facilities in the neighborhood that help to meet the recreational needs of residents. Public and parochial schools have recreational equipment and facilities on their lots as well as green areas. Public and parochial schools in the Crescent Hill neighborhood are listed in Table 1-3. In addition, the Southern Baptist Seminary and Ursuline Campus provide expansive green landscaped areas. These facilities meet some of the recreation needs of nearby residents. Open space surrounding the Peterson-Dumesnil House provides passive recreation opportunities and playing fields for the western portion of Crescent Hill. The playground behind St. Mark's Church and recreation facilities at Crescent Hill Presbyterian Church also help to meet the recreation needs of Crescent Hill residents. 5. Government and Non-Government Actions Actions taken by public agencies and private groups have shaped the quality of life and land use in the Crescent Hill neighborhood. A variety of groups are active in the area and institutional uses frame the overall neighborhood. In this section of the plan, the major actions are summarized. An early action that had a large influence on Crescent Hill was the construction of the railroad line. A street car line and later an interurban line ran between the existing railroad tracks and Frank- fort Avenue connecting the area with the downtown. The closely spaced houses built along streets perpendicular to Frankfort Avenue are a product of this growth period and reflect the premium placed on proximity to transit. The location of institutions or large tracts of land in Crescent Hill contributed to the area's character. The Louisville Water Company facilities date to the late 1870's. St. Joseph's Catholic Orphan's Home has been at its present location since 1885, the Masonic Widows and Orphan's Home since 1927. Southern Baptist Seminary bought a site in the area in 1921 with construction of its first building in 1923. Ursuline College dates from the late 1930's. An early government action that has had an effect on the neighborhood was the creation of zoning in Louisville in 1931. Most of the established residential areas were placed in zoning classifications that permitted more apartment use than existed at the time. In Crescent Hill, zoning allowed conversion of homes built for single- family use to be converted to apartments. More recent actions by public and private groups occurred in response to the April, 1974 tornado. The tornado destroyed or damaged numerous houses in the neighborhood and raised concerns that reconstruction would be at the density levels permitted by the existing (then) zoning districts. A study was prepared by the Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission for all of the older city neighborhoods struck by the tornado. The study recommended creation of a lower density zone that permitted apartment use, the R-5A zone, and recommended its application to portions of the area between Frankfort and Grinstead, as well as vacant land in Reservoir Park. Most of the rezoning recommendations were enacted in the 1974-1976 period. The tornado also led to renewed interest in the Crescent Hill Community Council. After the rezoning the Council turned its attention to various neighborhood improvement projects. A neighborhood newsletter was initiated, social activities were organized, and the Council continues to function as an advocate for the neighborhood. The Council's Planning Committee did extensive work on improving the railroad right-of-way. A contract with the L&N railroad to create off-street parking was never executed, but the neighborhood did carry out a major landscaping program. Through Trees, Incorporated, trees were planted along the entire length of Frankfort Avenue and Grinstead Drive. More recently the Planning Committee developed a preliminary report on neighborhood improvement needs in the areas of land use, zoning, transportation and beautification. That report was the basis for the Crescent Hill Neighbor- hood Plan; many of the issues and recommendations of this report were initially identified in the 1981-82 document. Another major accomplishment of the Community Council was the organization of the Peterson-Dumesnil House Foundation. With assistance from the Board of Aldermen, the Foundation conducted a successful fund raising ampaign to purchase this historic home. The Peterson-Dumesnil 3iouse now provides a regular meeting place for neighborhood events, as well as a focal point for the community. The United Crescent Hill Ministries (UCHM) is an eleven year old organization of 19 churches in the Crescent Hill area which was organized as part of the tornado recovery efforts. The ministry operated a variety of programs in 1984 including emergency assistance, senior citizen meals programs, job placement for volunteers, counseling, child care, recreation, educational services for after school and a clothes closet for the needy. The Senior Citizen program receives funds from a variety of sources including KIPDA, the Kentucky Cabinet for Human Resources, the City of Louisville, Jefferson County Fiscal Court, HHS Administration For Aging, Lutheran Church in America and the 19 UCHM churches. Since the tornado rezoning, the city has undertaken several projects to benefit Crescent Hill. The Landmarks Commission conducted the research and prepared the necessary applications for designation of parts of Crescent Hill as a National Register Historic District. This designation recognizes the area's unique architecture and provides tax incentives for its preservation. The city accepted donation of a scenic easement on approximately one .acre of land at Grinstead Drive west of Peterson. A study of this site's environmental resources is currently being conducted; this will be the basis for future work by the city to maintain this site. The city of Louisville Neighborhood Reserve Fund (Community Development funds) was used to provide repairs for the Crescent Hill Park tennis courts, replacement of the library roof and sidewalk construction on South Galt Avenue, Ewing Avenue and Brownsboro Road. Reconstruction of the brick paving on Peterson Hill was also accomplished with public funds. 6. Summary of Problems and Issues 1. Institutional uses with considerable amounts of vacant land may be developed in the future. The type of development and its design will have a significant effect on Crescent Hill. 2. The low density, residential character of the neighborhood is a desirable element of Crescent Hill. Large scale apartment complexes are not consistent with existing character of the area. 3. Excess railroad right-of-way can be an important asset to the community (e.g., green space, parking area, bike path, etc.). 4. The architectural and open space resources of the Crescent Hill Historic District are not protected by a design review process.

5. Pressures for more intense development and creation of a commercial strip may occur along Frankfort Avenue and Browns- boro Road -- highly traveled streets serving prosperous residential areas. 6. Commercial development in the study area often detracts from the neighborhood's appearance: facades and signs need improvement, rear of structures are deteriorating, no street furniture or landscaping is provided. 7. Billboards do not contribute to the area's appearance. 8. Numerous parking lots in the study area lack screening and landscaping. 9. Residential zoning in some areas permits higher residential densities than currently exist. Some predominantly single- family areas are zoned for apartment use. 10. Existing zoning would permit commercial expansion along Frank- fort Avenue. B. PROJECTION This section of the plan develops a projection of future conditions in the Crescent Hill neighborhood, assuming current trends and uovernment Drocrrams continue unchanaed. In essence. this is a zorecast ofAthe area's future if a plan for the neighborhood is not implemented. The guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan are policy statements of desired conditions in Louisville and Jefferson County;- they are used as a benchmark to evaluate projected conditions in Crescent Hill. 1. Projected Future Conditions Existing development will dominate the future land use pattern in Crescent Hill as little vacant, developable land (23 acres) exists which could alter that pattern. However, institutions hold substantial acreage (380) acres) which could accommodate additional development. Gross density of dwelling units in the area will remain at about 3 units per acre and population loss due to declines in household size will probably continue to outstrip gains in population through new dwelling unit construction. Renter units will dominate any new housing construction and will make up over 50% of the total units in the area. Household size declines will continue because of the maturing of the existing family households. Smaller family size and two person or one person older households will be the predominate owner occupied units (and renter occupied single- family units) in the area. Newer renter units will continue to be occupied by small households. Most of the housing units in the area will remain in good condition and desirable for residential use. Division of homes into apartments and the construction of apartment complexes is likely to continue. The large open spaces owned by institutions are likely to decrease, through expansion of the institutions or sale for development. Conditions along Frankfort Avenue are unlikely to improve, if no action is taken. The appearance of commercial structures, signage and the streetscape will continue to detract from Crescent Hill's image. Residential uses south of the Frankfort Avenue stores may experience disinvestment and decline. The variety and quality of shopping available would not improve in these circumstances. Residential uses in commercially zoned areas may be converted to businesses, or be torn down for parking. 2. Comprehensive Plan Recommendations The following guidelines from the Comprehensive Plan are relevant to the projected conditions in the Crescent Hill study area: 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. 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-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 £1 visual nuisances. If current trends continue, most of the guidelines listed above would be complied with, at least in part. Some historic resources would be lost or diminished by redevelopment of older homes for more intense uses (E-25). Additional apartment complexes may or may not be compatible with existing development (R-4, R-5, R-17). Likewise, development of the institutions' sites may have negative effects on adjacent residential areas (R-1, R-17). Guidelines C-2 and C-3 would probably not be met along Frankfort Avenue. C. ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Recommended strategies for the Crescent Hill neighborhood are developed in this section of the plan. The problems and issues and projected future conditions identified in preceding sections of this plan have indicated the aspects of the neighborhood needing improvement. Several alternative strategies were generated for each aspect needing improvement. Alternatives were considered and discussed by the Planning Committee of the Crescent Hill Community Council, with input from the Planning Commission staff. The best alternative or series of alternatives was selected through this process. Issues and the related alternatives are presented below, followed by the rationale for selecting the chosen alternative. This section concludes with the recommended land use plan. 1. Alternative Strategies a. Issue: Institutional uses have vacant land that may be developed in the future. Type and design of this development will significantly affect Crescent Hill. Alternatives: 1) Do nothing, rely on existing zoning and development review process to represent the community's interests. 2) Contact the institutions, ask them to inform the neighborhood of proposed development and to seek community input. 3) Develop non-regulatory design standards to promote new development that is in harmony with adjacent areas (in conjunction with alternative 2). 4) Seek designation of the National Register Historic District as a local landmarks district, with mandatory review of new construction. 5) Encourage preservation of open space in visible locations (e.g., maintain open space corridors along major streets, seek donation of easements, etc.) . Alternatives 2 and 5 are recommended. The Community Council's ongoing communications with the large institutions should continue, and the neighborhood's strong interest in being informed of any development proposals should be emphasized. The intent of alternative 2 is not to prevent any change in land use or additional development, but rather to ensure that these changes are assets to the neighborhood. In demonstrating a desire to cooperate with large land owners to create a project that is mutually beneficial, the Community Council will increase the likelihood that development proposals will be shared with the neighborhood, and community input will be genuinely considered. One of the goals for Crescent Hill is to preserve the "small town" character, which is created in part by the large open areas under institutional use. Alternative 5 is recommended as one way to help achieve this goal. Actions to preserve highly visible open space can be undertaken at the present time, or in the future as part of a change in use. Alternative 4 was discussed at length but was not selected as a plan recommendation. In the future the Community Council should assess the need for local landmark status, which entails regulation of exterior changes. Support among area residents for this measure was not considered adequate at this time. Any consideration of local landmark status for Crescent Hill would have to be related to the staff and budget of the Landmarks Commission. The 1500 structures in the Crescent Hill National Register District would increase the Commission's review responsibilities by 50%. Alternative 3 is considered as part of issue b, below. In addition to those recommendations, subsequent discussion by the Planning Committee addressed the need for a mechanism that would require proposed development to be submitted for review by area residents. This review would not be limited to development of the large institutional sites; refer to issue b, below. b. Issue: The architectural and open space resources of the neighborhood are not protected; there is no review process for small scale development (infill, reconstruction). Alternatives: 1) Do nothing, small scale development will not have a significant effect on an established neighborhood. 2) Create design guidelines or a design consultation service to encourage compatible development. 3) Seek designation of qualifying areas as a local landmarks district, with mandatory review process (strong neighborhood support is required). 4) Preserve open space and architectural resources through easements (historic preservation, conservation). Alternatives 2 and 4 are recommended. In addition, the Planning Committee suggested that throughout the City, neighborhood organizations be given the opportunity to review proposed developments, whether or not a change in zoning was needed. Permitting agencies would be asked to consider neighborhood comments as one of the criteria for granting permits. This would not give neighborhoods "veto power", but would provide an opportunity to mitigate possible negative impacts, and enhance the long-term vitality of City neighborhoods. The regulatory approach through local landmark regulations (alternative 3) is not recommended at this time, for the reasons discussed above. By providing guidelines or design consultation service, the cause of compatible development is furthered without generating opposition or ill will. This approach also allows greater flexibility for potential investors. The voluntary design guidelines or consultation service would apply to both large and small scale projects. Alternative 4 is similar to the recommendation for the large institutions. It would promote preservation of smaller open areas which contribute to Crescent Hill's semi-rural quality. Alternative 4 is also a non-regulatory way to preserve historic facades. The Committee proposal that development proposals undergo neighborhood review as a necessary step in the permitting process would address this issue as well. Smaller scale projects that may have a significant impact on their surroundings would be included in this review. Suggestions and comments from interested parties would help persons building in Crescent Hill achieve compatible development. c. Issue: Use of excess railroad right-of-way. This issue entails transportation as well as land use concerns. Refer to the plan's transportation section, part C.1.a. d. Issue: Pressures for more intense development and creation of a commercial strip may occur along Frankfort Avenue and Brownsboro Road -- highly traveled streets serving prosperous residential areas. Alternatives: 1) Continue to monitor zoning change requests, participate in the review process. 2) Encourage prospective developers to meet with neighborhood interests very early in the development process, to achieve a mutually acceptable project. 3) Rezone block faces with unexercised commercial rights (Frankfort Avenue from Peterson to Franck, Frankfort at Fenley). 4) Encourage new commercial development to occupy existing vacant or under-used commercial structures. All of the above alternatives are recommended. The Planning Commit- tee questioned the existence of development pressure along Frankfort Avenue, in light of the decline of this shopping area in recent years. The same strategies proposed for controlling growth would prove useful for improving the viability of this shopping area, however. Review of zoning change requests is an ongoing program of the Community Council. By continuing this effort, development proposals that would be incompatible with commercial revitalization can be discouraged. Alternative 2 is an outgrowth of the zoning review process. By involving the community in development review at an earlier stage, a more constructive, cooperative interaction can occur. The likelihood of mutually acceptable projects is increased. Rezoning areas of unexercised commercial rights serves two purposes: it increases the community's opportunity for comment on proposed developments, and it directs commercial investment toward existing business properties. Commercial structures along Frankfort Avenue that are vacant or underutilized (storage and marginal commercial establishments) detract from the area's appearance. Reoccupying these structures would increase commercial services available for area residents, while increasing investment in these older commercial establishments. e. Issue: Commercial development in the study area often detracts from the neighborhood's appearance: facades and signs need improvement, rears of structures are deteriorating, no street furniture or landscaping is provided. Alternatives: 1) Expand and strengthen the organization of business interests, to enhance the group's effectiveness. 2) Provide adequate parking to support commercial uses. 3) Encourage occupancy of vacant commercial structures . 4) Develop a design plan for upgrading signs, facades, and rear lot screening of commercial structures.

5) Improve the streetscape in commercial areas (improvement of public spaces: sidewalks, street trees, street furniture, condition of alleys). All of the above alternatives are recommended. A well organized business association is a key element in achieving an attractive shopping area. Development of a design plan for upgrading signs and buildings is dependent on support and coordinated participation by the affected businesses. Investment in streetscape improvements likewise depends on commitment on the part of the businesses. Adequate parking spaces strengthen the viability of stores and enable greater investment in the beautification. There is a significant shortfall in parking for stores along Frankfort Avenue. Several actions are recommended to correct this problem. A renewed effort to identify portions of the railroad right-of-way that could be used for off-street parking is proposed. More immediate solutions to the parking problem include using available rear lot areas for parking and delineating parking spaces in the curb lanes of Frankfort Avenue. Improvements to the alleys serving some commercial blocks, such as widening, straightening and improving maintenance, would make rear-lot parking more viable. Re-occupying vacant commercial structures provides an economic base for improving them; this action was discussed under the preceding issue. f. Issues: Billboards do not contribute to the area's appearance. Alternatives: 1) Encourage Louisville to adopt the sign ordinance in effect in the balance of Jefferson County. 2) Identify potential billboard sites (vacant, commercially zoned parcels) and rezone them. The Planning Committee expressed concern over billboards existing in the study area and the potential for proliferation. Both of these alternatives were endorsed, but they represent a partial response to the problem. A policy statement of opposition to additional billboards and recommending removal of existing ones more accurately reflects the neighborhood's objective. g. Issues: Numerous parking lots in the study area lack screening and landscaping. Alternatives: 1) Do nothing, existing parking lots are not a significant visual problem. 2) Publicize the City's existing standards that require screening and interior landscaping of new parking lots, redesigned and repaved parking lots. 3) Encourage the beautification of existing parking lots. Alternatives 2 and 3 are recommended. Parking lots for businesses and churches, while generally not eyesores, can be improved. Buffering and interior landscaping would make existing and new parking lots assets to the visual character of Crescent Hill. h. Issues: Residential zoning in some areas permits higher residential densities than current exist. Some predominantly single-family areas are zoned for apartment use. Alternatives: 1) Leave existing zoning in these areas intact, allow creation of additional apartments. 2) Rezone blockfaces with significant apartment uses to the zoning district appropriate for existing density. 3) Rezone predominantly single-family blockfaces from apartment to single-family zoning districts. Alternatives 2 and 3 are recommended. Lower density apartment zoning and single-family zoning are sought as means to preserve the quality of the housing stock and to continue attracting families to Crescent Hill. Single-family zoning for areas used in that manner would encourage investment and increase the stability of these areas. Lower density apartment zoning is desirable in light of the narrow streets and lack of parking in much of the area. The lower density level for apartment uses is also intended to prevent short term economic exploitation of older structures, through creation of very small, inexpensive apartments, ultimately leading to neighborhood and structural decline. i. Issue: Crescent Hill depends upon private providers of open space and recreation facilities (churches, institutions) . Alternatives: 1) Seek additional recreation facilities at Cres- cent Hill Park. 2) Encourage private sources to continue existing facilities, consider provision of additional recreation opportunities. Alternative 2 is recommended. Current Parks Department funding levels do not permit creation of new parks and playgrounds. Private providers are urged to continue fulfilling this role in Crescent Hill. The large expanse of open space at Crescent Hill Park was discussed as a possible site for additional active recreation facilities. The area south and west of Reservoir Avenue is large enough for a playing field. However, trees would have to be cleared and nearby homes may object to the noise generated by team sports. The Planning Committee supports keeping this area as unstructured open space, used for passive recreation. Related to increasing facilities at Crescent Hill Park, access to the park from the Reservoir Park subdivision should be improved. Subsequent to the Planning Committee's consideration of these alternatives, ways to improve park access were identified. A gate could be installed at the end of the east-west alley north of Randolph alley, or at the end of Claremont Avenue. Alternatively, a gate and walkway could be constructed using the Water Company's flowage easement between Blackburn Avenue and the reservoir. The support of adjacent residents would be needed for either of these proposals. j. Issue: Need to maintain and strengthen urban design elements that contribute to the beauty and identity of Cres- cent Hill. Elements of a program to achieve these purposes may include:

D Neighborhood identification signs 0 Street trees O Distinctive sign treatment o Street furniture (benches, bus stops, trash baskets) o Focal point/symbol o Entrance point markets (e.g., pillars) D Preservation of open space and architectural resources.

A program to beautify Crescent Hill and maintain its unique identity is strongly supported. The elements of such a program were identified in the Planning Committee's 1982 report. Commitment to designing and implementing this program remains strong. ! I 2. Recommended Land Use Plan The land use plan, recommendations and criteria for future land use in Crescent Hill are presented in this section of the report. The land use plan consists of a set of guidelines and a map (Figure 1-6). The guidelines contain the land use recommendations; the map defines areas for which specific recommendations have been made. The land use plan is the result of the problem identification and alternatives evaluation process conducted with the Crescent Hill community Council Planning Committee during the Spring of 1985. The plan is an application of the Comprehensive Plan to specific conditions existing in the study area. Site-specific recommendations (map and guidelines) represent the neighborhood's intent and best planning judgment at a given point in time. As conditions change and new opportunities arise, site-specific recommendations may need to be changed. The plan should not stand in the way of desirable changes that were not foreseen during the planning process. a. Land Use Guidelines New Development 1. Maintain contact with the large institutions in Crescent Hill concerning future use and development of their sites. Provide community input on proposed land use changes. 2. Encourage city agencies to refer development proposals whose size or location may have a significant impact on surrounding areas to the appropriate neighborhood organizations for review - and comment. Encourage administrative and legislative bodies to consider neighborhood comments prior to acting on development proposals. - 3. Promote new development and redevelopment that is: - consistent with the neighborhood's predominantly residential character, comprised of single-family homes, duplex and small scale apartment uses; and - compatible with the appearances, design and size of existing development (e.g., design consultation service, - design guidelines). 4. Encourage preservation of architectural and open space resources, with a special emphasis on open space corridors along - major streets. 5. Protect environmental resources and areas of steep slopes as shown on Figure 1-6 in strict accordance with the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. The preceding and following specific

measures are recommended to the Board of Aldermen: - - preserving areas of steep slopes as open space; - clustering development on the least sloping portions of I steep sites; - developing steep slopes less intensively than would be allowed by existing zoning; - utilizing steep slope construction techniques; - minimizing negative impacts on downslope properties; and - provide necessary protection and maintenance of Hilliard Scenic Easement. Commercial Development

6. Limit commercial use in Crescent Hill to areas currently used - commercially (see Figure 1-6). 7. Ensure that new commercial development is compatible with surrounding residential use, by: - encouraging businesses to meet with neighborhood interests early in the development process, to I achieve a mutually acceptable project; - encouraging new commercial uses to occupy existing vacant or underutilized commercial space; and - providing design consultation services.

- 8. Improve the appearance of the Frankfort Avenue shopping area, by: - encouraging occupancy of vacant and underutilized structures; - maintaining structures and grounds in good condition; - screening commercial uses from residential areas to the south; - improving or restoring facades of commercial structures; - improving commercial signs, through creation of a standard, distinctive design; and - improving the streetscape, street furniture and the condition of alleys along commercial blocks. 9. Expand and strengthen the organization of Crescent Hill businesses. 10. Increase the amount of parking available for businesses along Frankfort Avenue by: - marking parking spaces in the curb lanes for on- street parking; - working with the railroad to develop landscaped parking in portions of the railroad right-of-way opposite commercial areas; and - encouraging businesses to utilize vacant space behind stores for off-street parking. Use of land south of the alley for parking is not appropriate. Zoning 11. Rezone residential areas to the lowest density zoning district consistent with existing use. 12. Rezone residential areas zoned for commercial use to the appropriate residential classification. 13. Continue to monitor zoning change requests, and participate in the development review process. Recreation

14. Improve pedestrian access from Reservoir Park subdivision to the Louisville Water Company site and Crescent Hill Park. 15. Encourage private providers of open space and recreation facilities (churches, institutions) to keep existing facilities and to consider providing additional recreation opportunities. Appearance 16. Upgrade the appearance of parking lots by: - publicizing the City's requirement for screening and I interior landscaping of new and altered parking lots; and - encouraging the beautification of existing parking lots. 17. Encourage adoption of more stringent regulations governing billboards. Oppose construction of new billboards and seek removal of existing billboards in Crescent Hill.

18. Strengthen Crescent Hill's identity as a distinct neighborhood and build community pride through enhancement of the area's natural beauty and urban design. This effort should include: - providing for the maintenance and beautification of the green space along the Seaboard railroad tracks; - focusing improvements along Frankfort Avenue as a key element in the neighborhood; - creating an "identity planting plan" to guide street tree, shrub and flower plantings that are characteristic of Crescent Hill; - establishing boundary identification, including neighborhood signs and entrance point markers (e.g., pillars) ; - designing a consistent style of business identification signs; - building a focal point/syrnbol for the neighborhood, as a successor to the water tower; - improving street furniture, street lights and bus stops so they contribute to the area's character. D. IMPLEMENTATION This section of the Crescent Hill Neighborhood Plan identifies actions and programs to implement the plan's recommendations. Groups or agencies who would be responsible for the implementation measures are indicated, as well as costs that can be readily estimated. The discussion of implementation measures includes a reference to the guideline in part C.2 that would be realized by the proposed action. The following text outlines many tasks to be accomplished, particularly for the Crescent Hill Community Council. It should be noted that the Crescent Hill Plan addresses neighborhood needs over the long term, 15 to 20 years. Immediate action on all of these implementation measures is not anticipated. The priorities established in the following section of the report should be used to determine the best use of limited resources. It should further be noted that the discussion of implementation reflects conditions in June, 1985. Shifts in government programs, agency responsibilities and other factors will affect the implementation resources available in the future. 1. Neighborhood Involvement a. Strengthening Neighborhood Organization Implementation of the Crescent Hill Plan will depend largely on neighborhood resources, residents, institutions and businesses. Effective organization of neighborhood groups is very important. The following measures will help achieve the necessary level of neighborhood organization. Crescent Hill Community Council. The Crescent Hill Community Council will face a variety of tasks, discussed below. To fulfill these functions adequately, it must be a strong organization with a broad base of support. Additional members should be recruited: individuals, businesses and institutions. The large land holdings of institutions in Crescent Hill makes their participation in the Community Council critical. Effective communication and better understanding among neighborhood institutions, residents and businesses would enable all parties to identify common interests and marshal available resources to further them. Board representation on the Community Council for area institutions should be considered, or other ways to strengthen this linkage. Churches willing to be actively involved can be powerful forces for neighborhood improvement. The neighborhood newsletter is a good way to keep residents informed and involved in the neighborhood. Crescent Hill should continue regular publication of a newsletter that has 100% neighborhood coverage: residents, businesses and institutions. The Crescent Hill Community Council also needs to maintain close relationships with elected officials, with public agencies that work for neighborhood revitalization, and with adjacent neighborhood associations. Close cooperation with the Louisville Neighborhood Development Cabinet and Economic Development Cabinet will be needed to achieve implementation of many of the neighborhood's goals. Support from the Board of Aldermen is essential. Common issues facing Crescent Hill and adjacent neighborhoods will require good communication and cooperation among associations. This can be achieved in various ways: inter-neighborhood task forces to work on specific issues, sending representatives to each other's meetings, sending newsletters to each other. Block Watch. Block Watch is a crime-fighting tool that informs residents of 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 Crescent Hill 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. Business Association. The Crescent Hill Plan supports the ongoing efforts to strengthen and expand the organization of neighborhood businesses (guideline 9)*. A business association would provide a means of addressing common problems; parking needs, beautification, traffic problems. An active business association would play a key role in implementing several plan recommendations: establishing a consultation process between prospective businesses and the Commun- ity Council, occupying vacant storefronts (guideline 7); improving the appearance of commercial buildings, signage and streetscape in the Frankfort Avenue corridor (guideline 8). As with the institutions, participation by businesses on the Community Council's board may be desirable. b. Neighborhood Participation in Plan Implementation The Crescent Hill Community Council will be the primary force behind implementation of some of the plan's recommendations; for other recommendations, the council will have to function as a catalyst. Depending on neighborhood priorities and resources at any given time, the Community Council can significantly aid plan implementation in some or all of the following areas. Plan Adoption. As a first step toward plan implementation, the council should ensure that the draft plan is thoroughly reviewed by neighborhood interests, revised as necessary, and prompt action is taken by city government in approving the Crescent Hill Neighborhood Plan. Adoption of the plan (in official language, this is "plan approval and recognition") requires review by the Neighborhood Development Cabinet and the Board of Aldermen. Once the plan is adopted, it becomes a basis for seeking assistance with specific neighborhood improvement projects. Maintaining Communication with Institutions. The future of the neighborhood is closely linked with the future use of its large institutions. At such time as any of these properties would change ownership or be developed more intensively, the Community Council wishes to have an opportunity to provide input on these changes (guideline 1). This objective can be met in several ways. Parti- cipation by the institutions in the Community Council should be encouraged. A meeting or letter expressing the neighborhood's desires concerning input on land use changes should be arranged. Some form of non-binding agreement or letter of intent could be sought. In return for the right to review proposed development, the neighborhood can offer its support during necessary zoning changes and other review processes. Given the long lives of institutions and the turnover among participants in voluntary organizations, some written record would be useful in ensuring an opportunity for community review in the future. Design Assistance Team. Several plan recommendations relate to high quality and appropriate design: compatibility of new construction with existing (guidelines 3 and 71, placement of structures on sites with slopes (guideline 5), improving the appearance of Frankfort Avenue commercial uses and parking lots (guideline 8 and 161, strengthening neighborhood identity through design (guideline 18). The Community Council could further these objectives by creating a "design assistance team". This group could be composed of volunteers from the neighborhood with expertise in design, including architects, landscape architects, engineers, graphic designers and planners. The Crescent Hill area is fortunate to count among its residents numerous professionals in these fields. The availability of free design consultation services could be publicized through the newsletter. This group would review plans for exterior changes and provide guidance to individual property owners. Design guidelines could be created, suggesting "do's and don't's" for construction and landscaping. The magnitude of this effort would be considerable. The design assistance team may want to obtain aid from various sources. Students in various disciplines could work on this project

*Land Use Guidelines appear on page 23 and following. as an internship. The team could sponsor a design competition to develop the identity planting plan or signage concept. Tax deductible contributions to the Crescent Hill Community Council Forum, Inc. could be used to pay salaries. Funding raised by area businesses or donations from other sources could be used to retain a staff person (part-time, temporary or full-time, as resources allow). Zoning and Land Use Committee. The Community Council's Comprehen- sive Planning Committee has monitored zoning and land use issues for the neighborhood. The Committee may continue to look out for these matters, or may delegate them. The number of projects needed to implement the neighborhood plan may argue for creation of a separate committee. In any case, it is important that a group of volunteers with expertise in zoning continues in existence. This group should review any requests for zoning changes, and be alert to possible violations of the zoning regulations (guideline 13). 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 a consensus among area residents. This process will develop expertise in zoning matters among Council members, who may choose to constitute a zoning committee after the neighborhood rezoning is accomplished. Business Association. The Crescent Hill Community Council can assist in orqanizinq area businesses. The Council can offer the use of peterson-Dumesnii House for meetings. It can help convene organizational meetings, and collect information from other neighborhoods that have active merchants associations. Through its newsletter the Council can publicize efforts by businesses to improve the commercial services provided for the neighborhood. Communication with the Railroad. The Community Council has worked with Seaboard Systems for many years to keep the railroad right-of- way in good condition. These contacts should be continued and expanded, to address additional beautification measures and the possibility of providing landscaped parking in the right-of-way (guidelines 10 and 18). The Planning Committee requested Seaboard Systems to consider allowing unused portions of the right-of-way to be used for parking and a bikeway; the initial response was negative. The Committee may wish to explore these ideas further and attempt further negotiations. Future communication and negotiations should be managed by the committee. As in the past, assistance from attorneys should be sought as needed. Recreation Improvements. The Community Council acting through the Planning Committee should take responsibility for the plan's recreation recommendations. The Council is the logical body to determine if there is support among Reservoir Park residents for improved access to the reservoir and Crescent Hill Park (guideline 15). If adjacent property owners do not object, the Water Company has expressed its willingness to consider providing a pedestrian gate along the eastern side of the reservoir. Furthermore, a walkway could be developed between the reservoir and Blackburn, if supported by nearby residents. The Community Council or Planning Committee should meet with area residents and determine if there is support for these improvements. The Council should also contact area institutions that do or could provide recreation facilities, indicating support for privately supplied recreation opportunities (guideline 15). Specific recreation needs in various locations could be communicated to potential providers in this way. 2. Zoning Changes A zoning change concept for Crescent Hill has been prepared as part of the neighborhood plan. Proposed zoning changes are shown on Figure 1-7. Approximately 240 parcels would be rezoned under this concept. Zoning changes would promote implementation of several of the plan's recommendations. Proposed changes and their intent are discussed below. The process of rezoning portions of Crescent Hill - consists of two parts. The Crescent Hill Community Council consulted with area residents explaining the possible zoning changes and receiving comments on them as part of the process of reviewing this draft plan. This entailed a series of meetings, publicized - among all residents and businesses through the newsletter. The results of this process are shown on Figure 1-7. Implementing the proposed zoning changes is a separate process. The Planning Com- mission has estimated the cost of the Crescent Hill rezoning at $20,000. These funds will be used to prepare the rezoning application and the zoning change staff report, to develop legal descrip- - tions of affected properties, to identify property owners and owners of properties adjacent to sites proposed for rezoning. Owners of property proposed for rezoning would be notified by mail, by signs posted at the property, and by a legal ad. The Community Council - should work with the Board of Aldermen to arrange funding to carry out the proposed zoning changes. The effectiveness of zoning is determined by the quality of its administration. Adequate enforcement of the zoning regulations, staff review of proposed development and responsible legislative action are critical to effective zoning. - a. Lower Density Residential Zoning The most extensive zoning changes considered in the Crescent Hill Plan would lower permissible densities and, in many areas, replace apartment zoning with single-family zoning. These zoning changes would help achieve two of the plan's recommendations: to rezone residential areas to the lowest zoning classification consistent with existing use and to promote new development that is compatible with existing use (guidelines 3 and 11). The following methodology was used to translate the guidelines into potential zoning map amendments. Block faces zoned for apartment use but predominantly single-family (two-thirds of the parcels or more) are candidates for single-family zoning. These are the "R-6 to R-5" changes which occur in the area west of Hillcrest and north of Grinstead. Block faces with significant apartment uses (one-third of parcels or more) are shown as "R-6 to R-5A" on Figure 1-7. It should be noted that the zoning change concept shown on Figure 1-7 is based on the best information available as to the existence of apartments in residential structures. The Planning Commission's field survey was checked against published sources (Caron's and City directories) and was re-surveyed by staff. Nevertheless, there may be inaccuracies in the existing land use map, because of the difficulty of distinguish- ing homes that are single-family and those converted to apartment use. The process of neighborhood review of the zoning change concept will correctly identify the various types of residential use. b. Reduction of Commercial Zoning The Crescent Hill Plan recommends that houses in residential areas, currently zoned commercial, be changed to residential zoning (guideline 12). The plan also recommends that commercial use not be expanded beyond its current limits (guideline 6). To achieve these recommendations, rezoning of houses to the appropriate residential classification is suggested. Unexercised commercial rights would be removed through two changes. The south side of Frankfort Avenue between Galt and Franck Avenues would be changed from C-1 to the R-6 Apartment zone. Two homes at the northwest corner of Fenley and Frankfort would be changed from C-1 to R-5. The zoning change concept also addresses commercial areas that would be allowed in a less permissive commercial zone. The block face between Franck and Hite Avenues on the south side of Frankfort Avenue would be changed from C-2 to C-1, with the exception of the automotive use at the corner of Franck. Reuse of commercial structures in these areas for more intense uses would be discouraged, if these possible zoning changes were implemented. c. Rezoning to Protect Natural Areas The Planning Committee has proposed rezoning of property upslope of the Hilliard Scenic Conservation Easement, to prevent environmental degradation. This proposal is discussed in item 6 of this section.

1 3. Improving the Appearance of Commercial Areas The Crescent Hill Plan addresses the need to make new commercial development compatible with adjacent housing, and the need to improve the Frankfort Avenue commercial areas (guidelines 7 and 8). Actions described below will promote these recommendations. a. Design Plan A detailed plan for design of storefronts, coordinated signage, streetscape improvements and parking should be prepared for the Frankfort Avenue commercial areas. Low cost measures that would improve the appearance of shopping areas, as well as structural improvements, alley improvements, provision of parking, etc., should be identified in the design plan. The design plan for Frankfort Avenue could be developed by the design assistance team (see item l.b), the Louisville Community Design Center, or a paid consultant. The Louisville Community Design center is a non-profit organization that receives Community Development Block Grant funds to assist neighborhood revitalization projects of this type. The Design Center has done work on commercial projects in other neighborhoods, and its assistance could be requested for shopping area design plans, The Community Design Center is funded through the Neighborhood Development Cabinet (based on aldermanic budget decisions) and through corporations and individual donations. The neighborhood can increase the likelihood of receiving Design Center assistance by contacting the Board of Aldermen. A consultant could be retained to develop a plan for the Frankfort Avenue corridor. This would require significant funding, possibly in the range of $30,000 to $50,000. I Implementation of improvements for the shopping areas would involve the public and private sectors. Businesses should fund improvements to their individual properties and parking areas. Public improvements (sidewalks, trees, street furniture) could be funded with city funds and business contributions. b. Occupying Vacant Structures Business that could be attracted to vacant or under-used commercial structures would yield benefits: additional services for neighborhood residents, more investment in property maintenance, and additional support for upgrading the shopping areas along Frankfort Avenue. The business association should help market vacant and under-used buildings to prospective tenants. This could be done informally, among individual business persons' contacts. Another approach would be to contact specific businesses that are lacking in the neighborhood, and encourage them to locate in Crescent Hill. The desire for a sit-down restaurant was raised during the planning process. Volunteers from the neighborhood and the business association could contact local restaurants in this regard. c. Alley Improvements Improvements to the alleys serving commercial establishments on Frankfort Avenue may encourage businesses to improve their properties and contribute to the viability of the shopping area. A preliminary drawing of potential alley improvements was prepared as part of the Crescent Hill Plan. Figure 1-8 shows a concept for upgrading the alley between Franck and Bayly Avenues. Improvements shown in this concept would facilitate traffic movement, provide additional parking, screen businesses from adjacent homes and enhance the area's appearance. This drawing is intended as an example of improvements that could be provided in other locations as well. Total cost of these improvements would depend on the final design and need for land acquisition; it may fall in the range of $50,000 to $100,000. d. Screening of Commercial Uses Landscaping and fencing are recommended to screen unattractive commercial uses and parking lots from homes located south of Frank- fort Avenue. Screening should be required as part of any zoning change or conditional use permit for businesses. A voluntary program is also recommended. The business association should encourage members to provide screening as part of a coordinated package of alley improvements, or independently. 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. e. Community Review of Commercial Development Review of commercial development is encouraged, to promote compatibility between businesses and homes. The review procedure described in item 5 is one way to achieve this objective. The business association could encourage commercial uses to present their proposed developments to the neighborhood, on a voluntary basis. f. Tax Credits Appropriate rehabilitation of income-producing properties in the Crescent Hill National Register District offers financial incentives for improving commercial structures located in the district (see Figure 1-4). A 25% tax credit is available, provided the improvements meet federal standards. (Revisions to federal tax law may revoke this program at some time in the future.) The business association and Crescent Hill 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. Parking for Frankfort Avenue Business Several measures are proposed in guideline 10 to improve the amount of parking available for businesses along Frankfort Avenue. Marking the curb lanes on both sides of Frankfort Avenue in front of commercial areas would encourage shoppers to park there, and would increase the number of cars that could be accommodated. Some blocks have been marked this way in the past; Figure 11-7 in the Transpor- tation section of the plan shows areas proposed for this treatment. The Public Works Department can provide pavement markings as part of its operating budget. Construction of off-street parking in excess railroad right-of-way on the north side of Frankfort Avenue is supported. Communication with the railroad has been initiated to determine if this is feasible, through the Planning Committee (see item 1.b). Implementation of this measure is discussed in more detail in the Transportation section, D. 1. Vacant land behind commercial establishments would provide additional areas for parking. The alley design (Figure 1-8) illustrates how additional parking spaces can be provided. Making an improved parking lot could be paid for by businesses or with public financial assistance. A low-cost revolving loan pool created for the Bardstown Road area has encouraged businesses to provide off-street parking on their premises. Public improvements to alleys, such as these shown in Figure 1-8, would encourage businesses to improve rear lot parking areas, and would encourage customers to use them. 5. Development Review Procedure An official procedure for citizen review of significant development proposals is recommended (guideline 2). This proposal would not be limited to Crescent Hill, but would apply city-wide. An ordinance or resolution by the Board of Aldermen and directives from the Mayor would help to implement this neighborhood consultation procedure. The ordinance or resolution would encourage review by the neighborhood, prior to issuance of building, demolition or curb cut permits, and would urge public agencies to carefully consider neighborhood comments. The resolution or ordinance should specify a threshold, beyond which projects would be governed by the review procedure. The following could be a starting point for establishing this threshold: - new residential structure over 4 units or 5,000 square feet floor area - new commercial structure over 2,500 square feet floor area - any major subdivision To achieve this recommendation, the Crescent Hill Community Council should work with the alderman representing the area, to ascertain the feasibility of enacting this procedure. Other neighborhood associations should be contacted to inform them of this proposal and to solicit their support. The Community Council should consider discussion of any proposed ordinance with the institutions in Crescent Hill. An.ordinance that was acceptable to the institutions would be more likely to succeed in the aldermanic adoption process. No direct expenditure of funds would be required for this implementation measure. 6. Preservation of Neighborhood Resources The Crescent Hill Plan seeks preservation of resources that contribute to the neighborhood's identity: open space, architectural resources, unique natural areas, and areas of steep slopes (guidelines 4 and 5). The following actions will help achieve these goals. a. Appropriate Design Design of new development in a manner sensitive to the neighborhood's preservation goals can significantly promote their realiza- tion. Further development of the large institutions in Crescent Hill can be situated away from major streets, to preserve highly visible open space. Structures can be placed on the more level portion of sloping parcels to minimize disruption of steep slopes. Reuse of historic structures and compatible design of adjacent development will preserve the area's architectural resources. The design assistance team, discussed in item l.b, could promote these appropriate design measures. The review process associated with zoning change requests is another avenue to promote appropriate design and placement of development. b. Restriction of Development Rights Deed restrictions, donations of easements or fee-simple ownership should be sought for significant open spaces in Crescent Hill. This would provide permanent protection for open spaces. A buffer strip that would preserve open space and large trees along major thoroughfares should be sought from the neighborhood's large institutions. This would be similar to the 100 foot strip created by deed restriction along portions of River Road. The River Road property is protected from development, including placement of structures, parking lots and access roads. At the same time, this land is privately owned and the responsibility for maintenance remains with the owner. A conservation easement or similar measure that would preclude development on steeply sloped portions of large lots should be requested. Terms of any easement should be such that it does not create a burden on the agency receiving the easement. Historic preservation easements should be sought for structures and surrounding open space on the National Register and designated as local landmarks. Implementation of the above restrictions would entail some costs. Legal fees, appraisals and surveys would be necessary for donation of an easement, creation of a deed restriction, or transferring of property ownership. Donors other than non-profit institutions may receive tax advantages that would more than offset these costs. The value of property rights given up will determine the amount of the tax write-off. Federal and state income taxes, estate tax and property tax may be reduced by donation of property rights. As of this writing, the Internal Revenue Service is closely evaluating the effect of easements on property values, and may not allow write-off for donation of an easement. The Jefferson County Office of His- toric Preservation has a "Transactional Costs Fund" to provide short term loans for potential donors of historic preservation easements. The cost of researching and conveying an interest in property will vary among individual properties. A rough estimate of $2,000 can be made. For institutions in Crescent Hill, deed restriction may be an appropriate way to preserve open space along the perimeter of the site. A restriction could be adopted by the institution, or could be a condition of sale if land were to be disposed of. Assistance from volunteers with legal and engineering expertise could reduce the cost of creating deed restrictions. The Community Council could offer this type of assistance, to encourage the institutions to take such action. The Department of Public Works and possibly Jefferson Fiscal Court are responsible for accepting and supervising easements. Donation of land, scenic or historic preservation easements will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Gifts that do not impose maintenance or inspection burdens on the City are preferable. c. Protection of Hilliard Scenic Easement This scenic easement was conveyed to the city with stringent standards for protection of environmental resources. As of this writing, steps are being taken to meet those standards. An environmental baseline study is to be conducted and regular inspection of the site is to be carried out. The Crescent Hill Plan supports these efforts. Any development proposals for sites located above this easement should be carefully reviewed by the Water Management Engineer, Jefferson County Works Department, to ensure no adverse environmental consequences. Clustering of development on less sloping portions of the site can be done through the Innovative Residential Development section of the zoning ordinance. Less intense development than allowed by zoning may be made financially attractive by donating a conservation easement or fee simple ownership on additional parts of the site, and receiving tax benefits. The Planning Committee of the Crescent Hill Community Council passed a resolution endorsing rezoning the four-acre tract immediately above the Hilliard Scenic Easement, to prevent damage to the easement. The proposed change from R-6 (17 units per acre) to R-5 (7 units per acre) is intended to reduce the loss of vegetation and prevent massive runoff from roofs and paved areas. This rezoning recommendation has been included in the Crescent Hill Plan (Figure 1-71. d. Water Management Review The Jefferson County Water Management Engineer reviews all proposed construction projects. In areas of steep slopes, this review is the primary tool for preventing environmental degradation. This office requires developers to submit a geologist's report stating that the soils and geology will support the proposed development. Provisions for controlling drainage and preventing erosion are required. Water Management encourages lower density development on steep slopes, to minimize tree removal and soil disturbance. Large lot development also facilitates the transition between new development and the land contours of surrounding areas. Steep site construction techniques that can be required by the Water Management Engineer include perimeter drainage and retaining walls. e. Peterson-Dumensil House Open Space The large open area surrounding Peterson-Dumesnil House is owned by the Jefferson County Public School system. It is used for recreation by students at Barret Middle School and by the neighborhood in general. At such time as the Board of Education may dispose of Barret, this open space would be offered for sale. The Peterson- Dumesnil House Foundation has expressed an interest in acquiring this land, if the Board ever decides to sell it. The expanse of open land complements the house; as time passes, historic homes in their original settings will be increasingly rare. The significance of this open space was recognized by the city, when the open land was included in the landmark designation for Peterson-Dumesnil House. This purchase would preserve a key open area in Crescent Hill. The Board of Education should consider the significance of keeping this area undeveloped, and facilitate purchase by the neighborhood's non-profit foundation. The Board of Education should be encouraged to donate the open land to the foundation, or require prospective purchasers of Barret to make a tax-deductible contribu- tion to the foundation as a condition of sale. Alternatively, sale to the foundation at an advantageous price should be considered. The foundation could raise funds for this project similar to its efforts to purchase the house. f. Protection of Historic Structures Two measures are proposed to protect the architectural resources of the Crescent Hill National Register District. The federal income tax credits for appropriate rehabilitation of income producing properties would encourage investment in residential structures with rental units. The Community Council should work with the Landmarks Commission to publicize this program. The neighborhood newsletter, a special mailing, or a workshop could be used to make property owners aware of the 25% tax credit. Tax credits are also available for major rehabilitation of older structures outside the Historic District. Although the Landmarks Commission is a primary source of information concerning the tax credit programs, it should be noted that these are federal rather than local programs and are subject to changes in federal policy and priorities. During the planning process, designation of the National Register District as a City of Louisville Landmarks District was discussed. It was decided that it would not be appropriate to pursue local designation at this time, although it may be desirable in the future. The Planning Committee should consider this issue in three to five years to see if there is resident support for a local landmarks district. If created, proposed exterior changes such as repairs, additions, new construction and demolition would be reviewed by a local architectural review committee and the Landmarks Commission. 7. Billboard Restrictions Efforts to prevent additional billboards and remove existing ones will require support from area residents, the business association and the Community Council. On a city-wide level, adoption of tighter sign controls would begin to address the problem. More stringent sign regulations in the balance of Jefferson County should be considered by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen. Support from Crescent Hill residents, and other neighborhoods, would expedite this process. A more effective way to stop proliferation of billboards is to encourage deed restrictions or covenants prohibiting them. The Council and business association should encourage property owners to adopt such restrictions, as part of efforts to upgrade the appearance of shopping areas. Assistance in doing the necessary legal work may be provided by volunteers, supplied by the Council. Business properties with existing billboards should be made aware of the deed restriction program, and be encouraged to join. Lease arrangements as well as the income generated by the billboards would likely discourage their participation. Over the long term, however, they may be persuaded to remove billboards from their property. Payments from the business association might be made for sign removal, if adequate funds become available.

8. Recreation Improvements Specific improvements to recreation facilities will be identified through review of this plan, and ongoing community contact of the Crescent Hill Community Council (see item 1.b). Once specific facility needs or improvements are identified, the Parks Department should be contacted. Parks Department would be responsible for installing and maintaining additional facilities. Facility needs could be met at locations outside the neighborhood. Playing fields at Thruston Park or on WLKY's property (1918 Mellwood Avenue) may be preferable to clearing trees on available land at Crescent Hill Park. Installation of the walkway and gate between Reservoir Park Subdivision and Crescent Hill Park, if supported by area residents, would be done by the Water Company. Facilities provided by churches and institutions are also sought. Financial assistance could be sought from surrounding residents, if necessary. These facilities are normally provided at the owner's expense. E. PRIORITIES In this final section of the land use plan for Crescent Hill priorities are established. Plan recommendations have been placed in one of four classifications: highest priority, high, medium or low priority. These classifications indicate the relative significance of each recommendation, the degree to which a particular improvement in the neighborhood is desired. The prioritization process is based on the reality of limited resources: private and public funds, agency personnel and study area residents. Because of these limitations, resources should be focused on higher priority recommendations. It should be noted that priorities are likely to change frequently. As progress is made in certain aspects of the neighborhood and as new issues face the community, priorities will shift. Re-assessment of priorities on a regular basis, therefore, is desirable. This can be part of the annual planning and scheduling process of the Crescent Hill Community Council and its committees. The following table presents the recommendations of the plan as prioritized by the Planning Committee in June of 1985. Following each recommendation is a reference to related implementation measures which appear in Section D. Plan recommendations rather than implementation measures were prioritized. Implementation measures will change over time, as government programs are replaced, conditions change and new actions to implement the Plan are devised. I Plan recommendations will change gradually, as conditions in the study area evolve. I

Land Use Guidelines Rank Assigned Implementation Measures

HIGHEST PRIORITY

18. Strengthen Crescent Hill's identity as a distinct neighborhood and build comnunity pride through enhancement of the area's natural beauty and urban design. This effort should include: - maintenance and beautification of the green space 1 along the railroad, - focusing improvements along Frankfort Avenue as a 2 key element in the neighborhood.

11. Rezone residential areas to the lowest density residen- 3 tial zone consistent with existing use.

1. Maintain contact with large institutions; provide input 4 D. 1; D. 3; D. 5 on proposed development. Refer projects for neighborhood approval prior to permitting.

7. Ensure that new commercial development is compatible with 5 surrounding residenti a1 use.

Land Use Guidelines Rank Assigned Implementation Measures

HIGH PRIORITY

18. Strengthen Crescent Hill's identity through enhancement of natural beauty and urban design, including: - creating an "identity planting plan" to guide 6 street tree, shrub and flower plantings; - establishing boundary identification, including 6 neighborhood signs and entrance point markers (e.g., pillars); - improving street furniture, street lights and bus 6 stops. Land Use Guidelines Rank Assigned Implementation Measures

-> HIGH PRIORITY (continued)

13. Continue to monitor zoning change requests. 7 D. 1

17. Oppose construction of new billboards and seek removal 7 of existing billboards.

3. Promote compatibility of new development with existing 8 character (design consultation service).

12. Rezone residential areas zoned for commercial use to the 8 appropriate residential classification.

2. Refer development proposals to the Community Council for review, as part of the permitting process. 8

Land Use Guidelines Rank Assigned Implementation Measures

p~~ -

MEDIUM PRIORITY

18. Strengthen Crescent Hill's identity through enhancement of natural beauty and urban design, including: - designing a consistent style of business identifica- 9 tion signs; - building a focal point/symbol for the neighborhood, 9 as a successor to the water tower;

5. Protect unique natural areas. Preserve steep slopes as 9 open space, or use appropriate design and construction techniques.

8. Improve the appearance of the Frankfort Avenue shopping 9 area.

4. Encourage preservation of open space, especially along 10 major streets.

6. Limit comnercial use in Crescent Hill to areas currently 10 used commercially.

9. Expand and strengthen the organization of Crescent Hill 11 businesses.

Land Use Guidelines Rank Assigned Implementation Measures

LOW PRIORITY

15. Encourage private providers of recreation facilities to 12 keep existing facilities and to consider providing additional facilities.

16. Upgrade the appearance of parking lots. 12

10. Increase the amount of parking available for businesses 13 along Frankfort Avenue.

14. lmprove pedestrian access from Reservoir Park Subdivision 14 to the Water Company and Crescent Hill Park. Land Use March 14. 1985

Land Use

LEGEND

RESIDENTIAL 1 Single Family 2 Two Family 3 Other

INDUSTRIAL 4 Light 5 Heavy 6 Transportation 7 Utilities

COMMERCIAL 8 Wholesale 9 Retail 10 General 11 Professional Office

PUBLICISEMI-PUBLIC 12 Governmental 13 Medical 14 Educational 15 Religious 16 Recreational 17 Other 18 Cemeteries

V Vacant P Parking

Source: Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission, March, 1985.

Corrections (Residential) 6/25/85

- Study Area Boundary

Figure 1-1 Sheet,A CRESCENT HILL Land Use NEIGHBORHOOD - -'-' ,.,t *,,= 111.... ,.. C."... 2 1 ?,.."I.. C.." ....D. >AJ March 14, 1985- ' 1-

Commercial Classification

LEGEND

Neighborhood

Service * Regional @ Office

Vacant

Source: Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission. I985

Figure 1-2

Sheet I

CRESCENT HILL .=, .- .m rn #-#

NEIGHBORHOOD Commercial Classification ,=u- , ,hm,,~' F-, s ",,,,. L;,,,r,r.. .l...... C,"".. ' ...P ..I...- .. Ci ..,la. . ...,.., .. .,. ,i

Existing Zoning- May 10, 1985

Single Family Residential Districts R-1 Residential (1.1 units per acre, 1 dwelling per 40,000 square feet of lot area) R-4 Residential (4.8 units per acre, 1 dwelling per 9,000 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 3,625 Apartment square feet of lot area) R-6 Apartment (17.4 units per acre, 1 dwelling per 2,500 square feet of lot area)

R-7 Apartment (34.8 units per acre, 1 dwelling per 1,250 square feet of lot area) R-8 Apartment- (58.1 units per acre, 1 dwelling per 750 Office square feet of lot area) R-8A Apartment (58.1 units per acre, 1 dwelling per 750 square feet of lot area)

Commercial Districts C-1 Commercial C-2 Commercial

Source: Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission. 1985

Figure 1-3

Condition of Structure March 14, 1085

LEGEND

RESIDENTIAL

Sound

Sound Minor Repair

Sound Major Repair

Deteriorated

Dilapidated

COMMERCIAL

Standard

Depreciating

Substandard

CRESCENT HILL NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT

Property Designated as a Local Landmark 0 Property Listed on National Register of Historic Places * Property Designated as Local Landmark and Listed on National Register 1. Peterson-Dumesnil House 2. Peterson Avenue Hill 3. Field House 4. Crescent Hill Reservoir 5. Steam Engine Co. #21 6. Crescent Hill Branch Library

Residential Properties with Absentee Property Owners

Sources: Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission; Historic Landmarks and Preservation Districts Commission

Figure 1-4

CRESCENTHILL Condition of Structure NEIGHBORHOOD L,,,,.,,, ,,, ..... ll.C1".. i Ce.".jD. ,,. , ,, . -, .- -. .. ,. , .. . . -. . , ,. . , ,., .. ,, , . .-31 March 14, 1985 S Sheet C . . CRESCENTHILL Condition of Structure NEIGHBORHOOD ,,,am,,e ,.&,,,,,~ P 7- ? 8 P ....,., c:"..,,<. .. . .,., ...... -. .., . , ., ...... ,., .., .. ..,. . -41 March 14, 3985 I

Land Use Recommendations

LECEND - Commercial areas Undeveloped areas with steep slopes; open space or appropriate design and construction techniques recommended (see land use guidelines 5).

- 12 - 20% slopes

- over 20% slopes

Land Use

LECEND

RESIDENTIAL Single Family Two Family Other

INDUSTRIAL Light Heavy Transportation Utilities

COMMERCIAL Wholesale Retail General Professional Office

PUBLICISEMI-PUBLIC Governmental Medical Educational Religious Recreational Other Cemeteries

Vacant Parking

Source: Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission, March, 1985

Figure 1-6 @ i21 Sheet A

CRESCENT HILL 2m 0 >," .YO *iSrrl 1 Land Use II -I NEIGHBORHOOD , ,hm,,< LO"...,... ,1 ...... " C."... Pi.".,". Co.r..i.o...... , ,.. -. -. . ., ., . , -. . .. ,. , ,. , ., , ., , ,. Recommendations - i'

along major streets Provide community input on Proposed Zoning Changes October, 1985

Single Family Residential Districts

R-E Residential (1.1 units per acre, 1 dwelling per 40,000 Estate square feet of lot area) 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 3,625 Apartment square feet of lot area) R-6 Apartment (17.4 units per acre, 1 dwelling per 2,500 square feet of lot area) R-7 Apartment (34.8 units per acre, 1 dwelling per 1,250 square feet of lot area)

R-7B Apartment/ (34.8 units per acre, 1 dwelling per 1,250 Off ice square feet of lot area) R-8 Apartment- (58.1 units per acre, 1 dwelling per 750 Off ice square feet of lot area) R-8A Apartment (58.1 units per acre, 1 dwelling per 750 square feet of lot area)

Commercial Districts C-1 Commercial C-2 Commercial

Areas proposed for Zoning changes

Source: Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission, 1985

Figure 1-7

I \ \ KEY I ' SCALE I"= 33' \ * ocmolish for,Parking if Rehobilifation is no1 Feosbble ** R~~~ code ~m rovemenla Should Include the Atdition 01 Rear ~ntroncesond Generol Clean-UP. elc~ - Existing Alley R.0.W @ Existing Tree Pasri bla Planlings ! - erQ,L-.A Demolished structures I ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS CONCEPT

..d 1.n.n.. mwll *,a- cod.- II. Transportation A. NEEDS ASSESSMENT 1. Summary of Findings - - The roadway network in the Crescent Hill neighborhood does not conform to the traditional north-south east-west grid pattern because of the area's steep topography and large institutions. - - The highest traffic volumes in the neighborhood are carried on Interstate 64; the highest traffic volumes on surface streets occur along Frankfort Avenue and Lexington Road, Brownsboro Road and Cannons Lane. - - Several roadways are narrow, with pavement widths below the minimum required to adequately accommodate two-way traffic and parking. -- Only four intersections in the neighborhood experienced high traffic accidents: Lexington Road/Cannons Lane (201, Lexington Road/Stilz Avenue/Garden Drive (17), Brownsboro Road/Hite Avenue (14) and Grinstead Drive/Stilz Avenue (9) . - - Two intersections have or are approaching congestion problems with periods of unstable flow and congestion. These intersections are the Frankfort/Hillcrest/Stilz and Brownsboro/Hill- crest intersections. -- Existing transit service in the Crescent Hill neighborhood is adequate. -- Truck traffic through the neighborhood is light by comparison with other portions of the city.

-- Trains on the L & N (Seaboard) railroad tracks parallel to Frankfort Avenue block all access routes to North Galt Avenue and the Reservoir Park area. In addition, circulation within Crescent Hill is periodically delayed. -- Norbourne Way functions as a short-cut around the Frankfort/- Hillcrest intersection. The alignment of Forest Court and Norbourne Way does not allow emergency vehicles to enter Forest Court. -- A majority of the residential and commercial areas in the Crescent Hill neighborhood are adequately served by well maintained sidewalks. There are areas where sidewalks are lacking or pose a tripping hazard. - - The existing bikeway adequately serves the neighborhood west of Birchwood Avenue. The area east of Birchwood is not served by designated bikeways. -- On-street parking along narrow ro-adways, a necessity in some residential areas, constricts traffic flow. Commercial areas along Frankfort Avenue lack adequate parking. 2. Existing Conditions a. Roadways Crescent Hill's street system is characterized by major roadways running east and west, linked by north-south residential streets. The regular grid pattern typical of city neighborhoods has been altered in Crescent Hill by the area's steep topography and large institutions that interrupt the street system. Each street in the roadway network may be categorized according to its particular function. All streets in the study area serve a vital purpose, the roadway network provides service to local as well as commuter traffic. "Functional classification" identifies the role of each street within the roadway network. The roadway network and functional classification are shown in Figure II-l.* Interstate 64, which borders the southwest corner of Crescent Hill, is classified as an "expressway", the highest functional classification. An expressway carries high speed, high volume traffic and provides regional accessibility. There is a full interchange at Grinstead Drive, providing expressway access to and from 1-64. "Major arterials" link major activity centers (employment, shopping, residential, etc.) within the metropolitan area and provide access to the expressway system. Traffic signals are phased to move vehicles along major arterials at about 35 miles per hour. However, traffic generally travels slower during the peak hours of 6:30 to 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 to 5:30 p.m. due to commuter traffic. Brownsboro Road and Frankfort Avenue are the major arterials in Crescent Hill. These east-west traffic arteries link the eastern suburbs, suburban shopping areas and Downtown. There are three "minor arterial" roadways in the study area: Lexing- ton Road, Grinstead Drive and Hillcrest Avenue. They serve as links between expressways, major arterials and collectors. Travel speeds generally range from 25 to 35 miles per hour depending upon weather and traffic conditions; signals are provided at key intersections. Grinstead Drive links Crescent Hill with Interstate 64. Lexington Road is another major east-west thoroughfare leading to Shelbyville Road and providing access to 1-64 at Grinstead Drive. The only continuous north-south route in Crescent Hill is Hillcrest and Stilz Avenues. These streets link Lexington and Brownsboro Roads, and provide access to Interstate 71 via Zorn Avenue outside the study area. Hillcrest and Stilz Avenues are linked by Frankfort Avenue; this offset alignment requires through traffic to make a right and left turn. "Collector" streets generally provide for movement within neighborhoods and serve as access routes to more heavily traveled roadways. Travel speeds and signalization are similar to minor arterials, but traffic volumes are lower. Garden Drive and the portion of Stilz Avenue south of Grinstead Drive are collector streets. The remaining streets within the study area are classified as local streets. Local streets primarily are used for access to adjacent properties and to the collector street system. On Figure 11-1, streets which are not otherwise labeled are considered local streets. Many of the local streets in Crescent Hill were platted at the turn of the century. Some streets and several alleys were shown on the original plat but were not constructed. Unbuilt rights-of- way are indicated by shading on the transportation inventory maps. Roads and alleys that are privately owned, occur in Crescent Hill. Private rights-of-way are shown on Figure 11-2. Where alleys were constructed and are of adequate width, they are used for garbage collection service and for access to rear yard garages and parking areas. 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 for locations along some of the roadways in the Crescent Hill Neighborhood Plan study area are shown in Figure 11-3 "Average Daily Traffic". The highest volumes of traffic are carried on Interstate 64. Brownsboro Road is the most heavily traveled surface street in the neighborhood, with 20,000 cars per day. This high traffic volume can be attributed to its use as a link between the Downtown and the suburbs of eastern Jefferson County.

*~llfigures (maps) appear after the text, starting on page 79 . Two additional study area roadways have ADT's in excess of 10,000 vehicles per day, the traffic volume~threshold requiring a four lane facility. They are Frankfort Avenue with 10,000 to 15,000 cars per day and Lexington Road with 13,000 to 17,000 cars per day. Parking is not permitted on Lexington Road;* portions of Frankfort Avenue have parking in the curb lanes during off-peak hours of commuter travel. Other study area streets carry less than 10,000 cars per day and have adequate width and travel lanes for their volumes. c. Public Transportation Public transportation is provided for the study area through the Transit Authority of River City (TARC). There are six different routes with direct service to the study area.

They are as follows: Market Street (Route No. 15) Muhammad Ali Boulevard (19) Oak Street (25) Eastern Parkway (29) Middletown (31) Hounz Lane - Westport (55) The streets in the Crescent Hill neighborhood served by TARC routes are shown in Figure 11-4, "Bike Routes and TARC Routes". TARC routes are categorized according to function and general area served. The Market Street Muhammad Ali Boulevard, Middletown and Hounz Lane - Westport routes are considered to be radial routes. These generally provide service from an outlying area to Downtown Louisville. The Oak Street and Eastern Parkway routes serve as circumferential routes, connecting the study area and St. Matthews with central and southern Louisville, extending westward to the Ohio River. Express routes provide limited trips from one area of the city or county to another with a limited number of coach stops at each end of the route. Middletown is the only route with express trips serving the study area. All routes mentioned provide regular service to the study area, the Hounz Lane-Westport route is the only one that does not provide service seven days a week. The Middletown route has express service on selected trips for peak hours of commuter travel. The intersection of Frankfort and Stilz Avenues is the last pickup point for inbound express trips, and the first discharge point for outbound express trips. The express zone boundary at Frankfort and Stilz Avenues means that a portion of the study area west of Stilz is unserved by express bus service. However, the other routes provide adequate service for the entire study area. Some TARC buses are equipped with wheelchair lifts; selected trips on the Muhammad Ali Boulevard and Eastern Parkway routes have wheelchair accessible entrances. Kneeling buses are provided on most routes throughout the TARC system. Kneeling buses have air devices to lower the entrance steps of the coach making them more accessible to the elderly and handicapped who can walk. An additional public transportation service of TARC that is available to the elderly and handicapped is TARCLIFT. This special transportation service operates on the basis of requests organized in two manners: "regular subscription" requests and "advance call- in" requests.

*With the exception of Sunday parking in the curb lanes west of Cannons Lane. The "regular subscription" service is geared to those who work or attend school. It operates Monday through Friday from 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.. A person wishing to use this service arranges 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 service, 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 for Crescent Hill indicate that the neighborhood has significantly lower amounts of truck traffic than the city as a whole. Three percent of the vehicles on Brownsboro and Frankfort were trucks, in the most recent traffic count; the city average for major arterials is 7.5%. Trucks on Lexington Road at Stilz were 2% of total traffic; the norm for truck traffic on minor arterials is 6.9%. Collector streets in the study area showed similar, low levels of truck traffic.

Rail. The Seaboard Systems Railroad (formerly the Louisville & 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. This track has spurs to the Louisville Water Company's settling basins on both sides of Reservoir Avenue. The railroad has had a long association with Crescent Hill; the railroad provided commuter service in the neighborhood's early days. 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 Transportation 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 m.p.h. through the study area. The tracks presently carry ten trains a day, five in either direc- tion, according to Seaboard Systems. There are 16 at grade crossings within the study area, eleven of these have automatic warning devices (flashing lights and signal bells) with gates. Of the remaining five, three have warning signals and two have only railroad crossing signs with no warning devices. Railroad crossings and the markings/warning devices are shown in Figure 11-5 "Traffic Control Devices". Within the study area there are no grade-separated crossings; the nearest grade separation is at Pope Street, two miles west of the study area. 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 can cause intermittent traffic delays for north-south traffic within the study area, but do not affect the east-west commuter traffic on Brownsboro and Lexington Roads. The tracks cross Frank- fort Avenue less than one mile from the western border of the study area, thus causing delays along Frankfort Avenue outside the Cres- cent Hill neighborhood. e. Sidewalk and Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalks and street crossing aids should ideally be provided to insure safe pedestrian access to and from centers of activity. Within the study area significant concentrations of completed sidewalks exist as well as crosswalks near schools and churches. Walk/wait signals are provided with most crosswalks at busy intersections. Figure 11-6 shows the "Pedestrian Facilities'' serving the study area. f. Bikeways The study area is served by two officially designated and marked bicycle routes. The bicycle routes serving the study area are 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 Crescent Hill. Cyclists using these routes share the roadway directly with the motorist; 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 include Payne Street, Ewing Avenue and the alley south of Frankfort Avenue, terminating at Birchwood Avenue.

The second bike route serving the Crescent Hill area goes from I Downtown to Cherokee 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 striping. Refer to Figure 11-4 for the location of bike routes. g. Parking Facilities I Parking facilities, both on-street and off-street, are an important element in any neighborhood's transportation system. Properly designed and adequate amounts of off-street parking ensure that the flow of traffic is not frequently interrupted by vehicles entering and exiting on-street spaces. Vehicles must have a storage or parking place at both the origin and destination of any trip. Residential areas in the Crescent Hill neighborhood have various types of parking, but the parking in these areas is generally adequate. The types of parking include on-street parking, rear-lot parking with access by way of alleys and off-street parking in driveways. There are some areas where on-street parking on narrow roadways constricts traffic flow. Commercial uses along Frankfort Avenue generally lack adequate off-street parking. On-street parking in such areas may result in interruption of traffic flows, as vehicles enter and leave parking spaces. East of Stilz Avenue on-street parking is prohibited during peak travel hours. Overflow parking from larger uses in the neighborhood, such as the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, sometimes creates problems along nearby street where on-street parking results. 3. Analysis of Existing Conditions a, Roadways It can be generally stated that surface streets in the Crescent Hill neighborhood handle normal levels of traffic adequately. However, along Lexington Road and Frankfort Avenue during peak commuting hours traffic becomes slightly congested. Along Frankfort Avenue, the numerous traffic signals and their lack of synchronization create stop-and-go traffic flow and some resulting congestion. A more common problem affecting traffic flow in the Crescent Hill neighborhood is narrow pavement width. This problem is further complicated when on-street parking occurs along a narrow roadway. Few if any local access roadways in the neighborhood have the minimum pavement width of 36 feet that is required to accommodate free-flowing two-way traffic and parking on both sides. Streets less than 36 feet wide require drivers to slow down significantly when there is on-coming traffic, or pull over and allow the other vehicle to pass, depending on street width. A minimum pavement width of 30 feet is required to adequately accommodate two-way traffic and parking on one side of the street. Because of the prevalence of on-street parking in the Crescent Hill neighborhood, pavement widths below 30 feet were felt to be a transportation issue - that should be addressed. In an attempt to deal with the problems created by narrow pavement widths, Birchwood Avenue north of Grinstead Drive was made one-way south. Neighbors along this roadway have complained that this makes access to their property inconvenient. Kennedy Court residents have noted an increase in traffic on their street as a result of this restriction. The right-of-way needed to widen the 100-foot stretch of Birchwood would have to be acquired, as this portion of Birchwood is a private steeet. Opposition to such a project by property owners who would lose landscaped lawns would make a neighborhood consensus unlikely. Roadways in the neighborhood with pavement widths below 30 feet and their actual pavement widths are: Ewing Avenue (26 feet) Raleigh Lane (18 feet) Franck Avenue (26 feet) Crosshill Road (18 feet) English Avenue (24 feet) Upland Road (18 feet) Wataga Road (24 feet) Kennedy Avenue (18 feet) Top Hill Road (20 feet) Meadowlark Avenue (18 feet) Cochran Hill Rd. (19 feet) Aubert Avenue (18 feet) Crescent Avenue (19 feet) Birchwood Avenue (12 feet) Some of the alleys in Crescent Hill are in need of maintenance and repair. Problems associated with these alleys include poor surface conditions, inadequate drainage, overgrown vegetation and poor lighting. Some alley right-of-way is unconstructed; unbuilt alleys are shown on Figure 11-1. Accidents. Four intersections in the Crescent Hill neighborhood experienced high levels of traffic accidents over the two year period from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1984. These high accident locations are listed in Table 11-1. The most common causes of traffic accidents include "failure-to-yield the right-of-way", "disregard of the traffic control device" and "making improper turning movements. " All of the high accident intersections in the neighborhood are located along roadways that also experience high levels of traffic. It is normal for streets with higher traffic volumes to have higher numbers of traffic accidents. However, accidents due to failure to yield the right-of-way and improper turning movements may indicate driver confusion about an intersection, improper design or some other defect. This may indicate the need for improvements at these intersections.

Table 11-1 High Accident Locations

Intersection Accidents (1983 ti 84) 1. Lexington Road and Cannons Lane 20 (5 + 15) 2. Lexington Road and Stilz Ave./Garden Dr. 17 (5 + 12) 3. Brownsboro Road and No. Hite Avenue 14 (11 + 3) 4. Grinstead Drive and Stilz Avenue 9 (6 + 3) Source: Louisville Police Department, computerized Accident File, 1985.

Each of the four high accident locations is examined below and improvements suggested. 1) Lexington at Cannons Lane (20 accidents in 1983 and 1984) - - suggest "stop ahead" signs be added to Lexington and Cannons Lane (north of Lexington) . "Lead-green" for heavy westbound left-turn movement from Lexington to Cannons should be considered as a possible option if accident levels do not abate, or are shown to be the result of left-turn movements. Lead-green means that westbound traffic receives the green signal before eastbound traffic, thereby allowing unconstrained left-turn movement. Residents indicate that the northbound left-turn from Cannons backs up traffic to Willis Avenue. However, traffic counts do not indicate a problem for this traffic movement. Further, as Cannons Lane cannot be widened for a separate left-turn lane without additional right-of-way and adverse public reaction (in view of prior opposition to widening), adjustments to the traffic signal phasing are the only possible response. A separate phase could be created for northbound and for southbound Cannons Lane traffic; unfortunately this would drop the level of service from A to C for all approaches. (Level of Service is explained in part b., below.) 2) Lexington at Stilz/Garden (17 accidents in 1983 and 1984) -- suggest installing more prominent "stop ahead" signs on all intersecting streets. "Lead-green" for heavy eastbound left-turn movement from Lexington to Stilz should be considered for this intersection as well.

3) Brownsboro at Hite (14 accidents in 1983 & 1984) - - poor site distance on the northeast corner poses a hazard for southbound Hite. Removal of aging tree and carving down the embankment to improve sight distance is suggested.

4) Grinstead at Stilz (9 accidents in 1983 and 1984) - - placement of more prominent "stop ahead" signs on Grin- stead west of Stilz, and a "heavy cross traffic intersection" sign or "caution dangerous intersection ahead" sign on Stilz south of Grinstead is suggested. In addition, shrubbery should be trimmed to improve sight distance at this intersection. The above discussion does not address accidents involving trains and cars. The at-grade crossings of the railroad tracks in Crescent Hill have been the scene of several accidents in recent years. Data on this type of vehicular accident is not collected by the police department. Four crossings in Crescent Hill do not have crossing gates: Blackburn, Claremont, Forest Court and the entrance to St. Joseph Children's Home. Forest Court. Access problems for this private street and use of the railroad crossing at Forest Court are issues that have been under consideration for some time. Norbourne Way and the Forest Court railroad crossing are used frequently by through traffic avoiding the stoplight at Frankfort and Hillcrest. A November 1984 traffic count conducted by the Department of Public Works found that 91% of the vehicles crossing the railroad at Forest Court were using the Norbourne Way short cut, not actually going to or from the homes on Forest Court. This short-cut traffic creates problems on Hill- crest. Left-turns from Norbourne Way conflict with northbound Hillcrest traffic. A more serious safety issue results from the railroad crossing. The Forest Court crossing has no crossing gates; fatal car-train accidents have occurred at this location. Cars can be observed using Norbourne Way to "beat the train" after the Hillcrest crossing arms have been lowered. The entrance to Forest Court from Norbourne Way is difficult to maneuver, because of the placement of the stone pillars forming the court's entrance. The Works Department recently tested the ability of fire trucks to enter Forest Court from Norbourne Way. They found that the existing alignment will not accommodate a fire truck. The only access to Forest Court for fire trucks is across the railroad tracks; when a train blocks the track, this area is not accessible. 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 "F" . 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 "En implies substantial congestion with traffic making frequent stops and starts. Rating "F" indicates traffic is often backed up or jammed. Table 11-2, "Level of Service" shows the rating for intersections in the Crescent Hill neighborhood. Summary: Only two of the Crescent Hill intersections examined had poor level of service (LOS) designation. They are the intersection of Frankfort Avenue, Hillcrest Avenue and Stilz Avenue and the intersection of Brownsboro Road and Hillcrest Avenue. The LOS designations for the Frankfort/Hillcrest/Stilz intersection were, at their worst "D" for the morning peak hour and "B" for the evening peak hour. For the Brownsboro/Hillcrest intersection the lowest LOS designations were "C" for the morning peak hour and "F" for the evening peak hour. LOS designations for the remaining intersections examined are reflected in Table 11-2 and were either "A" or "B". Generally, poor LOS ratings can be attributed to the fact that intersections are not designed to handle the amount of traffic flowing through or the type and amount of turning movements that the traffic is attempting to make. Many of the problems at the intersections can be specifically attributed to traffic trying to make - left turns against on-coming traffic. The lack of separate signalized turn phases and left turn lanes causes many of the problems. - Problems specific to the Frankfort/Hillcrest/Stllz and Brownsboro/- Hillcrest intersections are examined more closely below. - 1. Frankfort Avenue/Hillcrest Avenue/Stilz Avenue Inter- section. Capacity analysis to determine level of service indicates that this off-set intersection operates at LOS designation "C" during the morning peak hour and LOS designation "B" during the evening peak hour. It appears that the 275-foot left turn lane that is meant to accommodate left turns left from westbound Frankfort to southbound Stilz is not sufficient to handle the heavy left turn morning traffic volumes. Because of this the intersection operates at capacity. The offset nature of this intersection requires northbound/southbound traffic on Hillcrest and Stilz to make additional turns that would be unnecessary to continuous northbound/southbound travel if the intersection were properly aligned. These additional turns help to create capacity problems. It does not appear that the LOS designations at this intersection will deteriorate further in the near future. The current LOS designations are not such as would justify the cost of complete realignment of the intersection, however measures short of realignment and reconstruction would do little to improve the LOS at the intersection. A more detailed analysis of this intersection is included in Appendix J. 2. Brownsboro Road/Hillcrest Avenue Intersection. Although traffic volumes indicate that this intersection operates at a LOS "F" as a result of heavy southbound left-turns on Hillcrest in the evening, a field inspection during the evening peak hour revealed no backlog on any approach. Nevertheless, only major reconstruction could resolve the possible problem. A widening of Hillcrest from Riedling to 200' south of Brownsboro within existing right-of-way would cost $360,000 excluding utility relocation costs. This would enable a dual left-turn lane for southbound Hillcrest, raising the LOS from "F" (1516 vph) to "D" (1308 vph). In view of the high reconstruction cost, marginal improvement in capacity, and questionable volumes, monitoring of traffic volumes at this intersection TABLE 11-2: ANALYSIS OF KEY INTERSECTIONS (Level of Service Ratings) -Date Intersection 11/19/74 Brownsboro Rd. at Ewing Avenue l0/20/83 (a) Brownsboro Rd. at Ewing Avenue 5/1/79 Brownsboro Rd. at Hillcrest 10/11/83 Brownsboro Rd. at Hillcrest 10/20/83 Brownsboro Rd. at Hite (g) 3/31/83 Brownsboro Rd. at Ewing 2/4/75 Frankfort Avenue at Hillcrest 5/18/78 (') Frankfort Avenue at Hillcrest 2/82 id) Frankfort Avenue at Hillcrest 5/18/78 Frankfort Avenue at Stilz 2/82 (d) Frankfort Avenue at Stilz 9/26/83 Grinstead Avenue at Stilz (g) 11/23/83 Lexington Road at Alta Vista (g) 5/2/85 Lexington Road at Cannons Lane 5/17/78 Lexington Road at Stilz/Garden

Notes : a) Based on traffic counts at Hite. b) Heavy southbound Hillcrest left-turn movement creates capacity problem. However, field inspection at 5:25 P.M. on 6/12/85 revealed no traffic backlog on any approach. C) Based on traffic counts at Stilz. d) Based on KIPDA counts of 2/82. e) Heavy eastbound Frankfort left-turn opposed by heavy westbound Frankfort through movement. f) Storage space for westbound Frankfort left-turn is at capacity. g) If signalized. would appear to be more reasonable than major reconstruction. In addition to level of service problems, some intersections experience inadequate sight distances that create hazardous driving conditions. One intersection is that of Lexington Road and Alta Vista Road. Some residents feel that this would be an appropriate location for a traffic signal. However, detailed analysis shows that a traffic signal is not warranted at this location. Refer to Appendix K. Similarly, the entrance to St. Joseph Children's Home was mentioned as being difficult to exit during peak hour traffic. Traffic volumes data was not available for this location. The amount of traffic would be less than that using Alta Vista, however The portion of Frankfort Avenue serving St. Joseph's Home carries a volume of traffic equivalent to Lexington Road at Alta Vista. For these reasons, the finding that a signal is not needed for Alta Vista can be applied to St. Joseph's as well. c. Public Transportation Existing bus service in the Crescent Hill neighborhood appears to be adequate. The routes serving the neighborhood, which generally run east-west, split the neighborhood into nearly equal sections so that a majority of residents are within a few blocks of a TARC route. According to TARC, an acceptable walking distance to a bus stop for able-bodied people is three to four blocks (approximately 1/4 of a mile), although a one to two-block walking distance is more desirable. The six TARC routes that serve the Crescent Hill neighborhood link it directly to the downtown area of the city and connect with other bus routes that serve all portions of the city and county. Gener- ally, city neighborhoods such as Crescent Hill are better served than outlying areas. All of the six routes that serve the neighborhood offer fairly frequent service and experience heavy ridership. Potential transit users can be discouraged from using transit service due to problems with convenience, waiting times, accessibility, safety and comfort for the transit passengers. The lack of shelters and benches along the TARC routes in the study area might discourage ridership. Some of the reasons for not using public transportation are inherent to public transportation when it is compared to private transportation (automobile). Efforts to improve service must be constant, however, in order to better serve those people without access to private transportation. Continuing federal cuts in funding to the WHEELS and TARCLIFT programs are a threat to the services they offer. d. Goods Movement Existing levels of truck traffic are currently being accommodated on arterial streets without capacity problems. Truck traffic on streets in the Crescent Hill neighborhood is significantly lower than the average city-wide, according to available data discussed in part 2.d, above. The area's narrow streets and steep topography tend to discourage truck traffic. The lack of industrial use and the limited amount of commercial use mean that trucks have little reason to travel through Crescent Hill. Nevertheless, neighborhood residents are concerned about truck traffic on residential streets, particularly South Peterson. The presence of the L&N (Seaboard) railroad in the Crescent Hill neighborhood creates several different problems. First, in two areas, the Reservoir Park Subdivision and Galt Avenue, trains block roadways that are the only access point for residents going to and from their homes. Emergency access to and from the Reservoir Park subdivision is available by way of an access road through Crescent Hill Park, but Galt Avenue has no such emergency access. Galt Avenue is the only residential street in the City that can be totally isolated by a blocked train crossing. Three at-grade crossings in the study area have crossing signals, but no crossing gates, two only have warning signs. This is a lower level of protection for area residents. Another problem is the inconvenience caused to people using Frank- fort Avenue that are stopped at the Hillcrest Avenue traffic signal even when trains are blocking Hillcrest. However, a new traffic control system that would not interrupt Frankfort Avenue traffic when a train is blocking Hillcrest should be in operation by the end of June, 1985. In addition to these specific problems, residents of both sides of Frankfort Avenue are periodically inconvenienced by the delays arising from an at-grade railroad line. The long-range future of the L&N (Seaboard) railroad right-of-way is unclear. The elimination of one of the two train tracks that once existed along the right-of-way has left additional unused space. The future use of this suace and even the remainins railroad track is uncertain. Two studies, Louisville and southern Indiana Corri- dors Analysis, June, 1981 and Eastern Corridor Transportation, July, 1984 both prepared for the Kentuckiana Regional Planning and Develop- ment ~~enci(KIPDA) by Schimpeler-Corradino Associates, have examined this subject. The 1981 study recommended using the space for a busway whereas the 1984 study retreated from that recommendation and suggested instead roadway improvements on the Frankfort Avenue/- Shelbyville Road corridor to facilitate traffic flow. These recommendations would definitely impact the railroad as well as the neighborhood and should be closely scrutinized before any implementation. e. Sidewalks and Pedestrian Facilities A majority of the residential and commercial areas in the Crescent Hill neighborhood are adequately served by sidewalks. These sidewalks are relatively well maintained. However, there are areas where sidewalks are lacking or pose a tripping hazard. The most conspicuous areas lacking sidewalks include Brownsboro Road west of Reservoir Avenue and several locations along Lexington Road, both busy streets. In addition, there is an area along Birchwood Avenue at its intersection with Grinstead Drive where sidewalks end. Residents of the neighborhood feel that sidewalks are needed also along the east side of Reservoir Avenue. Sidewalk hazards, including uplifted portions of sidewalk and drop offs where sidewalks end, are dangerous to pedestrians and present a barrier to the handicapped. Locations of these hazards and areas that lack sidewalks are shown on Figure 11-6, "Pedestrian Facilities". The major intersections in the Crescent Hill neighborhood, as shown on Figure 11-6, have pedestrian crossing signals. Additional pedestrian crossing signals are probably not warranted. Wheelchair ramps are provided at several intersections and the City of Louis- ville Public Works Department requires construction of ramps when sidewalks are replaced. f. Bikeway Facilities The bikeway along Beargrass Creek is the only bike route of this type in the city. Its proximity is a significant advantage to bicyclists living in Crescent Hill. The existing bikeway in the Crescent Hill neighborhood appears to provide adequate service, for as far as it goes. Areas east of Birchwood, however, are not served by designated bikeways. The neighborhood route west of Birchwood links with other bikeways throughout Louisville making a number of activity centers accessible by bicycle. In addition, bicyclists in the Louisville area are legally allowed to use any streets or highway except expressways. If bicyclists use rbadways that are not officially designated bicycle routes, they should be particularly cautious on roadways with high travel speeds (35 miles per hour or more) and high traffic volumes. The lack of east-west streets that are not major thoroughfares is why the bikeway ends at Birchwood. The east half of Crescent Hill is only appropriate for north-south bicycling into adjacent neighborhoods. - g. Parking

Some areas of the Crescent Hill neighborhood have adequate parking -L facilities. There are, however, areas that do not have adequate parking facilities or where parking creates problems. As mentioned previously, there are some roadways in residential - areas where on-street parking is necessary yet there is inadequate pavement widths to accommodate on-street parking and traffic movement safely. In addition, many residential areas that might be served by rear-lot parking cannot use this type of parking due to unconstructed alleys. Apartment conversion from single-family residential use, which has occurred in the Crescent Hill neighborhood, increases demand for already limited parking facilities. - In commercial areas along Frankfort Avenue there is inadequate off-street parking to satisfy demand. In addition, on-street parking, where allowed, usually does not make up for the deficiency. A parking analysis. conducted for this plan indicates that parking deficiencies along Frankfort Avenue are as high as 80 spaces, which occurs between Franck and Hite Avenues. The blockfaces along Frank- fort Avenue between Hite and Bayly Avenues and between Crescent Court and Stilz Avenue have deficiencies averaging 50 spaces. Other blockfaces, those between Ewing and Peterson Avenues, Kennedy Avenue and Crescent Court, Eastover and McCready Avenues and McCready and Weisser Avenues average 15 to 20 space deficiencies. The remaining blockfaces have either sufficient parking spaces to meet demand or a surplus of spaces.

Apparently neither the Southern Baptist Seminary nor Sacred Heart - Academy have enough conveniently located parking facilities to accommodate the demand that they generate. This is based on complaints by residents in surrounding residential areas about on- street parking along their streets by individuals destined for these institutions. Pleasant View and McCready Avenues are the streets most often mentioned in this regard. 4. Issues and Problems 1) Future use of the railroad right-of-way along Frankfort Avenue is uncertain. The long-range plan for a busway along the railroad corridor is opposed by area residents. Unused portion of the right-of-way could be an asset to the community. 2) Lack of traffic signal coordination along Frankfort Avenue corridor. 3) Traffic signals continue to cycle normally during the late night and very early morning hours. This may create unnecessary delays of through traffic during off-peak travel hours. 4) The Frankfort/Stilz/Hillcrest intersection experiences congestion and is hard to maneuver. Traffic that avoids the light at Hillcrest by using Norbourne Way and Forest Court adds to the complexity of traffic movement at this intersection. 5) High accident locations:

o Lexington at Cannons Lane (15)

O Brownsboro at Hite (11)

O Brownsboro at Hillcrest (8) o Lexington at Garden Drive/Stilz (6) O Frankfort at Stilz (6) D Grinstead at Stilz (6) D Frankfort at Hillcrest (5)

6) There is inadequate off-street parking for commercial uses along Frankfort Avenue. 7) Parking problems are reported on residential streets near the Southern Baptist Seminary, Sacred Heart Academy; residents object to students monopolizing on-street parking. 8) Discontinuous streets and new roads that may be built as part of new development.

D Hite Avenue from Grinstead to Upland o Springdale Road from Grinstead to Avon Court I o Extension of Field Avenue and connection from Frankfort to Brownsboro if St. Joseph Children's Home redeveloped. o Extension of roads as part of Masonic Home site development. 9) Insufficient width for two-way traffic and parking along side streets near intersection with major streets creates circulation problems. The solution to this problem on Birchwood, making it one-way north of Grinstead Drive, has also created problems. 10) Two residential areas' sole access route is blocked by the at-grade railroad crossing. North Galt Avenue does not have an emergency access route. 11) Numerous alleys are in need of improvement (littered, poorly lit, unpaved or pavement in bad condition). The future use of unconstructed alley rights-of-way should be determined. (Alternatives include maintaining the status quo, abandon right-of-way, construct alleys). 12) Inadequate sight distances create hazardous driving conditions at several intersections. 13) The study area lacks bus she1ters;'sidewalks are missing in some areas with considerable pedestrian traffic. 5. Government and Non-Government Actions The transportation issues identified in the previous section are the results of actions and inactions by government agencies and segments of the private sector. This section will summarize major actions taken by both government and private groups which have affected the quality and quantity of transportation facilities in Crescent Hill. a. Roadways and Parking Design of the street system was done primarily by the area's developers and subdividers. The existing alignments and street widths were determined prior to enactment of existing standards for street construction. The maintenance and improvement of the existing roadway system in Crescent Hill is a function of federal, state and local governments. The federal government's key role has been the construction and maintenance of the Interstate 64 corridor on the western edge of the neighborhood. The concept of an eastern radial expressway can be dated to the late 1940's. However, opposition to the route because of its impacts on parkland and neighborhoods in eastern Louisville led to major delays in the project. A major conflict involved a proposal to create an open cut in Cochran Hill, but a compromise tunnel was finally agreed to in 1966 and by the end of the decade work was completed on the roadway. Interstate 64 resulted in widenings and realignments of neighborhood streets in Crescent Hill and increased traffic flows on these streets, especially Grinstead Drive and Lexington Road. A major resurfacing operation has just been completed along the segment of 1-64 that borders the neighborhood. Interstate 71 has also impacted traffic flows into the neighborhood along Zorn Avenue/Hillcrest Avenue. The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KTC) maintains road surfaces and through a contract with the City Works Department provides traffic signals and signage on state maintained routes in the neighborhood. These include Brownsboro Road, Cannons Lane, Frank- fort Avenue, Grinstead Drive, Lexington Road and Interstate 64. In addition, KTC administers federal monies: Urban Systems Funds, Rail-Highway Grade Crossing Funds and the Safer Off-System Road Fund used for improvements initiated by local government. State and/or city governments must provide matching money on most federally funded road improvement projects. Improvement and maintenance of all Crescent Hill 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. Further, Public Works provides engineering services to the City of Louisville Neighborhood Development Cabinet for its federally funded physical improvements projects (new sidewalks, wheelchair ramps, etc.). Public Works is currently studying possible improvements at the intersection of Hillcrest and Frankfort Avenues. Two recent studies have explored transportation alternatives for the Crescent Hill area as part of areawide transportation systems; Louisville and Southern Indiana Corridors Analysis (6-81) and the Eastern Corridor Transportation Study (7-84), both prepared for the Kentuckiana Reaional Plannina and Development Auencv bv Schim~eler- Corradino ~ssociates. The 1581 study examined a1te;native improvement concepts for eight transportation corridors, including Frank- fort 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 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. Facilitating smooth traffic flow in and through the Crescent Hill neighborhood is also the responsibility of the Public Works Depart- ment. Identification of intersection inadequacies or traffic signalization problems are examples of functions performed by the department in regard to this responsibility. The Public Works Department has indicated that lights on Frankfort Avenue will be synchronized by the fall of 1985, and a new signal will allow Frankfort Avenue traffic to move when Hillcrest Avenue is blocked by trains. The Works Department is installing new traffic control devices at each intersection on Frankfort Avenue in the city, at a cost of $60,000. The department also regulates on-street parking in the study area by establishing "no parking" zones and by restricting parking hours. The city establishes these restrictions to prevent traffic hazards, facilitate the flow of traffic, provide space for bus stops or handicapped parking. Off-street parking is regulated through zoning regulations and enforced by the Zoning Enforcement Section of the Building Inspec- tion Department. Most of the older buildings in Crescent Hill were constructed before parking regulations were in effect. The regulations apply only to new construction, new uses of existing structures or the expansion of existing structures by 50 percent or more. Consequently, these regulations can prevent a parking shortage from getting worse, but do little to help resolve existing parking problems. The Crescent Hill Community Council attempted in 1978 to obtain permission from the LhN Railroad to develop parking in the strip of land between the railroad and Frankfort Avenue, but was unsuccessful. b. Goods 140vement The maintenance and improvement of the railroad tracks in Crescent Hill are the responsibility of the Seaboard System Railroad. The maintenance and improvement of railroad crossings are the joint responsibility of the railroad and the City of Louisville. Recon- struction of the Ewing Avenue crossing occurred during June of 1985. The railroad is also responsible for installation and maintenance of warning signs, signals and crossing gates. c. Public Transportation Public transportation in Crescent Hill is provided primarily by the Transit Authority of River City (TARC). This transit service depends heavily on federal funds provided by the Urban Mass Trans- portation Administration (UMTA) under Section 9 of the Surface Transportation Act of 1982 to subsidize operating costs and capital expenditures. TARC services are also subsidized by the Local Mass Transit Fund derived from the 0.2 percent occupational tax paid by persons employed in Jefferson County. Subsidy of public transit for the elderly and handicapped has been provided primarily by UMTA Section 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 through the portion allocated to the American Red 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. 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. Sidewalks were recently constructed with public funds on the east side of Ewing north of Frankfort, along Brownsboro Road west of Idlewylde Drive and on south Galt Avenue. The city has recently created a low interest loan program for repair of sidewalks that the Works Department considers hazardous. Payback is waived if the property owner continues at the same residence for five years. e. Bikeways Bikeways are also a local government concern. The Kentuckiana Regional Planning and Development Agency (KIPDA) has been responsible for determining the need for bikeways in the area. The needs and recommendations for bikeways as determined by KIPDA are presented in the 1977 KIPDA Bikeway Plan. Funding for bikeways is currently not available; this has curtailed expansion of the bikeway system. f. Emergency Access A critical issue to many of the areas north of the railroad right- of-way is emergency access. The City of Louisville Public Health and Safety Cabinet has been studying access problems affecting North Galt Avenue and the Reservoir Park area. Emergency access for the Claremont/Fenley Avenue areas was developed through private property to Crescent Hill Park. To date the North Galt area issue has not been resolved. B. PROJECTIONS

The transportation network serving the Crescent Hill area consists of - several elements -- streets, public transportation, rail and parking facilities, sidewalks and bicycle routes. These transportation systems are managed by various decision-makers and are affected by several programs. This section of the plan attempts to project future conditions in the study area's transportation network, assuming that no recommendations are applied to the problem areas and no changes in government/non-government actions occur. - If current trends continue, it is projected that for the short-term future, traffic volumes will continue to be periodically heavy along - Brownsboro and Lexington Roads and Frankfort Avenue. In the long- term, continued development in the county along Westport, Shelby- ville and Brownsboro Roads may cause a gradual increase in traffic along the major neighborhood roadways. Most intersections will function adequately. The offset alignment of Stilz and Hillcrest Avenues will continue if no concerted effort for improvements is made. This intersection will remain difficult to maneuver, and hazardous for those unfamiliar with the neighborhood. Until this alignment is improved, through traffic will continue to find it convenient to use local streets for north-south travel. I

Without action by residents, elected officials and the Works Depart- - ment, problems affecting Forest Court and Norbourne Way will continue. Cars will continue to use this short-cut, increasing the I chances of train-vehicle accidents and complicating traffic movement - on Hillcrest Avenue. The irregular alignment of Forest Court and Norbourne Way will continue to bar access for emergency vehicles . 1 when the railroad crossing is blocked. It is difficult to determine the long-term consequences of other factors relating to the street system. The street resurfacing program will continue in the City of Louisville. However, the - shrinking tax base of the city indicates a reduced ability to maintain city streets in the future. Resolution of such a problem - is beyond the scope of this neighborhood plan. If no intervention occurs, several intersections will continue to have inadequate sight distances. Uncontrolled vegetation at these I locations will make driving more hazardous for area residents. An increase in truck traffic is not projected for the Crescent Hill neighborhood. Any increase in commercial or industrial development either in or adjacent to the neighborhood might increase truck traffic slightly on major neighborhood roadways. However the proximity of Interstate highways offers alternative routes that will attract most of the increase. - Parking problems in the neighborhood will most likely continue. Without some improvements in pavement widths or some restrictions on parking along narrow roadways, on-street parking along these roadways will continue to restrict traffic flow. Parking deficiencies along Frankfort Avenue in commercial areas will continue or perhaps worsen if businesses in the area improves. If enrollment at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and at Sacred Heart Academy remains stable then parking problems caused by students parking in nearby residential areas will continue. If the status quo continues in Crescent Hill, alley issues will not be resolved. No consensus will be reached concerning needed lighting, drainage and pavement improvements. Decisions regarding building unconstructed alleys, or returning unused right-of-way to adjacent properties will not be made. - The public transportation needs of the elderly and handicapped may remain at their current levels or be reduced if current trends and programs continue. The current trend in the reduction of social ~~~ services funding indicates that a significant expansion of transpor- ,~,

.~., 8 tation service is unlikely. Because federal regulations (Section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973) have been relaxed, efforts to make regular coaches accessible to the handicapped may be severely reduced. Services offered by para-transit system (TARCLIFT) will not equal the services rendered by regular public transportation. Trains will continue to block roadways north of the L&N (Seaboard) railroad tracks. The potential exists for an emergency situation occurring in the isolated residential areas and the appropriate emergency service being unable to respond. In the event of a derailment, the inaccessibility of these areas may create serious problems. The space along the railroad left when one track was removed will continue to go unused. If current programs continue unaltered, the busway concept for the Frankfort Avenue corridor will remain a part of the community's long range transportation plan. Maintenance of the green space along the railroad right-of-way will be a continuing concern for the neighborhood, with procedures for cutting the grass undefined. If no actions are taken there will be no bike route east of Birchwood Avenue. Sidewalks will continue to deteriorate in some portions of the neighborhood (e.g., weeds, irregular surfaces). The continued lack of maintenance by property owners would contribute to their deter- ioration. The need for an adequate sidewalk system will increase as neighborhood facilities expand or develop in the future, especially where facilities are located within walking distance of bus stops. The consequences of continuing the status-quo in relation to the area's transportation network were compared with the Comprehensive Plan for Louisville and Jefferson County to determine the appropri- ateness of maintaininu the status quo. The comparison indicated that the resulting conditions would' conflict with the Comprehensive -Plan. The Comprehensive Plan sets forth criteria more directly related to transportation facilities and-their relationship to surrounding land uses.' Inadequate intersections would conflict with Guideline T-1. Deteriorated sidewalks conflict with Guideline T-2. The provision of adequate off-street parking is addressed in Guideline T-11. Guideline T-15 addresses the nuisances for residential uses created by high volumes of traffic. The continuation of current trends and programs would increase these nuisances within the Crescent Hill neighborhood. Guideline T-17 would be violated if transportation for the elderly and handicapped is curtailed. The Comprehensive Plan calls for revitalization of older areas and the failure to make transportation improvements would hamper fulfillment of this objective. If current transportation conditions and policies are maintained, the transportation system and the neighborhood would experience both negative and beneficial impacts. Beneficial impacts include no increase in truck traffic on neighborhood streets and generally good transit service will be maintained. Negative impacts include continuation of periodic traffic congestion along major neighborhood roadways and at some neighborhood intersections. Parking problems will continue along narrow residential streets, in commercial areas along Frankfort Avenue and in residential areas adjacent to institutional use in Crescent Hill. The L&N railroad will continue to be a source of uncertainty and inconvenience. These problems may pose an onqoing disincentive for residential revitalization. In addition, se;erai guidelines for the Comprehensive Plan would not be fully satisfied under these *~roiections. - These conflicts indicate the need to make various improvements to the transportation network in the Crescent Hill neighborhood in order to support neighborhood revitalization efforts. C. ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS This section of the plan develops recommended policies and speciflc actions to address Crescent Hill's transportation needs. Based on existing and projected conditions, and the statement of transportation issues and problems, a series of alternative strategies was generated. Alternatives were evaluated by the Comprehensive Plan- ning Committee and Planning Commission staff. The issues and alternative strategies are presented below, followed by an explanation of the selected alternative. This section concludes with the recommended transportation plan. 1. Alternative Strategies a. Issue: Future use of Seaboard System railroad right-of-way.

Alternatives: 1) Maintain the excess right-of-way as undeveloped green space and buffer between the railroad and adjacent development. 2) Express support for the busway corridor concept proposed for this right-of-way.

3) Develop off-street parking in portions of the right-of-way adjoining commercial areas that need additional parking (this may entail loss of trees) . Alternatives 1 and 3 are recommended; in addition a bikeway/walkway is recommended for the unused portion of the railroad right-of-way. Plan recommendations are based on assumptions that the railroad is willing to permit use of part of the right-of-way, and that adequate space is available to accommodate these uses. These issues were not resolved as of this writing. In discussing Alternative 1, the Planning Committee expressed concern over keeping the grass cut and maintaining the green area. Adequate maintenance should be ensured as part of any future scenario for the Seaboard right-of-way. Creation of off-street parking in sections of the right-of-way facing the commercial areas of Frankfort Avenue has been sought for years. This concept is still supported by area residents and businesses, and should be actively pursued. Landscaping should be an integral part of the recommended parking areas. Provision of parking should not be at the expense of the green space and buffer functions recommended in Alternative 1. Alternative 2 is opposed by the Planning Committee. The busway proposed for the Frankfort Avenue corridor should be deleted from the Metropolitan Transporta- tion Plan. The Committee believes that any future plans for this corridor should be based on citizen participation. b. Issue: Lack of traffic signal coordination along Frankfort Avenue. Alternatives: 1) Support scheduled signal coordination along Frankfort. 2) Do nothing. Alternative 1 is recommended. The Planning Committee expressed support for this project which is scheduled for completion by the end of June, 1985. c. Issue: Delays to through traffic during the late evening and -- early morning hours. Alternatives: 1) Do nothing, traffic signals during off-peak hours are not a significant problem. 2) Change traffic signals to flashing yellow (major streets) and flashing red (side streets) during off-peak hours of 11:OO P.M. to 6:00 A.M. Alternative 1 is recommended. The Committee raised concerns over possible speeding along Frankfort Avenue if Alternative 2 were to be . implemented. The delay resulting from traffic signals during the very low traffic period (11 P.M. to 7 A.M.) was not considered a significant problem. d. Issue: Frankfort/Stilz/Hillcrest intersection congestion. Alternatives: 1) Do nothing. 2) Install new traffic control system, with continuous green for Frankfort Avenue when Hillcrest is blocked by the train. (Scheduled for September, 1985). 3) Restrict on-street parking on the north side of Frankfort from Stilz to Crescent, on the north side of Frankfort east of Hillcrest, on the west side of Stilz. 4) Restrict on-street parking during evening peak hours (4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M.) on the south side of Frankfort from Crescent to Stilz. 5) Reconstruct the intersection to remove the off-set alignment of Stilz and Hillcrest (see Figure 11-7B). Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 are recommended; in addition, lower cost improvements that can be accomplished in the short term are recommended. A new traffic control system that would not interrupt Frankfort Avenue traffic when a train is blocking Hillcrest should be in operation by the end of June, 1985 (see issue b.). Recon- struction of the intersection as shown in Figure 11-7B is recommended as the ultimate solution to the offset alignment of Stilz and Hillcrest. However, the Planning Committee recognizes that this would be an expensive project that is not warranted by existing traffic volumes at this intersection. For these reasons this improvement cannot be anticipated in the near term. The proposed reconstruction nevertheless is a long range public improvement that is desired for reasons in addition to its traffic carrying benefits. It would provide off-street parking for commercial establishments at the southwest corner of Stilz and Frankfort. This would permit restricting on-street parking for the south side of Frankfort Avenue (Alternative 4). The Committee stressed that further parking restrictions not be placed on this area until alternative parking was available. Alternative 3 would increase the travel lanes on Frankfort Avenue and provide additional maneuvering space on Stilz Avenue. Traffic safety would also be enhanced, by eliminating the potential for accidents arising from occasional parking in areas usually used for through traffic on Frankfort Avenue. The additional maneuvering space on Stilz should lower the risk of colli- sions in this location also. 1 Short-term improvements recommended for this intersection are shown on Figure 11-7A. Two southbound lanes on Hillcrest would improve traffic flow through the intersection. The elevated median at Stilz would provide a haven for pedestrians, as well as more effectively separating north and southbound traffic. The median should be designed to align cars on Stilz so that right and left turns are 90 degree angles. Closing the connection to Frankfort Avenue from Forest Court/Norbourne Way would simplify traffic movement at the intersection and reduce turning movements from and to Hillcrest north of Frankfort. These improvements entail no right-of-way acquisition and very limited construction. Accordingly they should be achievable in the near term. e. Issue: Irregular alignment of Forest Court at Norbourne Way restricts emergency vehicle access; the railroad crossing at Forest Court poses traffic safety problems. Alternatives: 1) Do nothing. 2) Move the stone pillars, to facilitate turns on to Norbourne from Forest Court and close the Forest Court railroad crossing. 3) Reconstruct the link between Forest Court and Norbourne Way (see Figure 11-7B) and close the Forest Court railroad crossing. 4) Connect Forest Court with existing alleys leading to English Avenue. These alternatives were discussed without recommendation by the Planning Committee. Because this issue primarily affects a distinct portion of the neighborhood, the Committee suggested that a specific recommendation should be developed through consultation with residents of Forest Court. A meeting was conducted with Forest Court residents. The consensus was that alternative 3 would be acceptable, provided that the closing of the railroad crossing be well landscaped and an asset to the area's appearance. One of the pillars would have to be relocated to allow a straight connection between Norbourne and Forest Court. The residents may prefer to see the pillars relocated to Hillcrest Avenue, and Norbourne Way renamed Forest Court. Residents expressed strong opposition to opening Forest Court to connect with the alley north of the Court. f. Issues: High accident locations. (Lexington at Cannons, Brownsboro at Hite, Lexington at Garden Drive/Stilz, and Grinstead at Stilz). Alternatives: 1) Improve clear sight distance at these intersections. 2) Evaluate signal operation, need for adjustment of phasing. Alternatives 1 and 2 are recommended. The northeast corner of Hite and Brownsboro is in need of measures to improve the sight distance. The utility pole should be relocated and a portion of the embankment removed. The need for a traffic signal at this intersection should be considered periodically, in light of existing traffic conditions. The intersection of Lexington Road with Garden/Stilz and Cannons Lane should be marked with "signal ahead'' signs. In addition the signal phasing along Lexington Road should be evaluated periodically. Westbound Lexington Road traffic at Cannons, eastbound Lexington Road traffic at Garden/Stilz may benefit from "lead green" time, to facilitate left turns at these intersections. Changes to the signal phasing would improve left-turn movements at these intersections, but the necessary expenditure may not be justified at this time. These intersections function adequately under current traffic conditions. g. Issue: Commercial uses with extensive curb cuts along Frankfort Avenue. Alternatives: 1) As part of any reconstruction or expansion, require redesign of curb cuts to focus property access in optimal locations. 2) Provide additional off-street parking on railroad right-of-way if merchants agree to improve on-site parking and access. 3) Seek voluntary action by merchants to reduce curb cuts. Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 are recommended. These three strategies are different means for achieving the same end. Alternative 3 depends on voluntary action by the affected businesses; Alternative 2 would trade neighborhood assistance in creating off-street parking for redesign of curb cuts. Alternative 1 can be achieved using the existing city review processes. In addition to these measures, the recommendation to mark parking spaces in the curb lanes of Frankfort Avenue should help reduce traffic entering and leaving commercial sites, and irregular parking practices (see issue h). h. Issue: Inadequate off-street parking for commercial uses along Frankfort Avenue. Alternatives: 1) Do nothing, allow stores to derive their own solutions to the parking problem. 2) Develop parking in the railroad right-of-way. 3) Delineate parking spaces on both sides of Frankfort Avenue. 4) Utilize existing vacant space behind stores for off-street parking. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 are recommended. Parking located in excess railroad right-of-way represents the best opportunity to provide off-street parking for Frankfort Avenue businesses (see issue a). Pavement markings to delineate on-street parking spaces have been provided in some blocks of Frankfort Avenue. These markings should be re-done and markings should be provided in other blocks with commercial development. Delineated parking spaces indicate that parking is permissible and can increase the number of cars that will fit in a given area. Use of vacant portions of a commercial property to meet some of its parking needs is also endorsed. This is probably the quickest way to expand the supply of parking for existing businesses. Rear lot parking should be provided in a manner that is sensitive to adjacent residential uses. Screening of parking areas is supported. Expansion of parking into residential areas south of the alley is not appropriate. i. Issue: Parking problems on streets near Southern Baptist Seminary, Sacred Heart Academy. Alternatives: 1) Continue to request cooperation from the schools concerning this problem. 2) Encourage the schools to provide additional off-street parking. 3) Investigate parking restrictions that may be applied, to discourage student parking in residential areas. Alternatives 2 and 3 are recommended. Additional off-street parking that is convenient for the students is the optimal solution. The vacant lots at the southeast corner of Meadowlark and Godfrey should receive further consideration for use as off-street parking. If adjacent residents would agree to a landscaped and screened parking lot, the amount of student parking on Pleasant View would be diminished. Residents of McCready and Pleasant View in the past have indicated opposition to parking restrictions on their streets. Alternative 3 suggests that this topic be reconsidered, to assess the relative merits of the status quo and creation of parking restrictions. j. Issue: Discontinuous streets and roads needed to serve new development. O Extend Bayly Avenue from Grinstead to Upland. D Extend Springdale Road from Grinstead to Avon Court. e Connect Field Avenue through St. Joseph's and connect Frankfort to Brownsboro, if St. Joseph Children's Home redeveloped. o Extend roads as proposed in the Masonic Home redevelopment plan. The Planning Committee expressed support for some of the road construction projects mentioned above and opposition to others. The extension of Bayly from Grinstead to Upland would encourage traffic to cut through the Cochran Hill area. Because this area has narrow streets and a considerable dependence on on-street parking, additional traffic is not desirable. The extension of Springdale is opposed for similar reasons; through traffic would be disruptive to this very quiet residential area. The connection of Field Avenue is opposed because the right-of-way on the east side is very narrow and homes are placed very close to it. In addition, making Field a through street from Hite to Pennsylvania would have an impact on abutting homes. Construction of linkages as part of developing the Masonic Home and the St. Joseph Children's Home is supported. A road connecting Frankfort Avenue and Brownsboro Road through St. Joseph's would diminish through traffic on Crescent and Birchwood Avenues. A road linking Fenley and Brownsboro Road is earnestly sought, to provide emergency access and to facilitate normal circulation. k. Issue: Insufficient width for two-way traffic and parking along side streets near intersection with major streets. Alternatives: 1) Continue existing conditions with constricted travel area, as means of slowing traffic and discouraging through traffic. 2) Restrict on-street parking near intersections. Where there is inadequate off-street parking: a) permit parallel parking in the front yard, b) consider use of vacant lots for off-street parking, C) construct alleys and encourage provision of rear-lot, off-street parking. 3) Make narrow streets one-way. Alternatives 1 and 2 are recommended. Related to this issue and these alternatives, the Planning Committee expressed support for a study of possible street closings. Making existing through streets into cul-de-sacs is another response to the issue of narrow streets that are used for parking as well as through traffic. A study of street closings would involve a detailed analysis of the effects on through traffic movement. Support from residents of affected streets and the neighborhood as a whole is essential. Alternative 2 likewise would require a consensus among adjacent residents that parking restrictions were desirable, and that parking could be provided elsewhere. Parking in front yards is not a desirable solution to the parking shortage.

I. Issue: Residential areas whose sole access route is blocked by the at-grade railroad crossing. Alternatives: 1) Do nothing, continue the existing level of emergency access. 2) Continue the status-quo until Fenley is linked through the Masonic Home property with Browns- boro Road. 3) Improve the usability of the link between Claremont and Crescent Hill Park (publicize to residents, inform emergency services). 4) Investigate alternatives for linking North Galt with Brownsboro Road (e.9. access road along railroad to Hite, emergency access easement). Alternatives 3 and 4 are recommended. The existing access to Crescent Hill Park and Brownsboro Road is immediately available and requires no funding. However its usefulness depends on an education effort among area residents and emergency service providers. Eventual construction of a link between Fenley Avenue and Brownsboro Road, as part of the Masonic Home development reduces the justifica- tion for building another access route in the interim. Emergency access for North Galt Avenue should be defined after its residents have formed a consensus on this topic. The Works Department has identified a preferred alignment for the access route. Area residents should comment on this route and the type of use it should receive (emergency access only, or open for regular use). m. Issue: Alleys that are in need of improvement (littered, poorly lit, unpaved or pavement in bad condition). Alternatives: 1) Encourage residents to keep alleys free of litter, publicize property owners' maintenance responsibilities.

2) Report persistent litter problems to enforcement officers. 3) Identify alleys in need of pavement or pavement repair, request the City to make the needed improvements. 4) Request the City to have lights installed in alleys that residents believe to be safety risks. 5) Encourage residents to provide security lighting at the rear property line. Alternatives 1 and 2 are recommended; a detailed study of capital improvement needs is also recommended. Earlier work by the Planning Committee has identified site-specific improvements that are needed, such as repaving and drainage work. Rather than seeking isolated improvements based on an incomplete survey of needs, a comprehensive approach to alley enhancement is recommended. This study should also address the alternatives listed under issue n., below. In recommending this detailed study, the Committee recognizes the need to involve abutting property owners in the planning process. Alternatives 1 and 2 are short term measures that address the neighborhood's litter problems. No detailed study is required prior to addressing "housekeeping" actions of this type. n. Issue: Future use of unconstructed alley rights-of-way (e.g., status-quo, abandon right-of-way, construct alleys). Alternatives: 1) For areas lacking adequate parking spaces, construct alleys to provide access to rear yard parking.

2) Do nothing, in case there is need for these rights-of-way in the future. 3) Abandon unused right-of-way, return the land to abutting properties for additional yard space. No recommendations were made. Each of these alternatives may be the appropriate strategy for a particular alley. The alley study discussed under issue m. will determine which course of action is most desirable. o. Issue: Inadequate sight distances create hazardous driving conditions at several intersections. Alternatives: 1) Trim trees, vegetation that create visibility problems. 2) Restrict turning movements that are hindered by visibility constraints. Alternative 1 is recommended. Most of the sight distance problems should be corrected by removing vegetation. For those locations still lacking adequate visibility, restrictions on turning movements -- may be needed. In one particular instance, removal of parking is suggested: along the west side of Peterson, on both sides of the alley south of Frankfort Avenue. Signs along Lexington Road alert- ing through traffic to the hidden access points of residential - streets may also help alleviate the risk for area residents. p. Issue: The study area lacks bus shelters; sidewalks are missing in some areas with considerable pedestrian traffic. Alternatives: 1) Seek construction of TARC shelters at high volume transit stops. 2) Provide benches, sidewalks at bus stops. 3) Fill in gaps in the sidewalk system. Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 are recommended. A TARC shelter is proposed for the bus stop on Lexington Road at Sacred Heart Academy. Other facilities are proposed for Frankfort at Ewing and Frankfort at St. Joseph Home. The site does not permit installation of a shelter at the latter site; vandalism of a TARC shelter at Frankfort at Ewing may preclude a new shelter. Amenities are also recommended for lower volume bus stops. Sidewalk construction is recommended for Brownsboro Road west of Reservoir Avenue, the east side of Reservoir and the south side of Lexington Road. 2. Recommended Transportation Plan The recommended transportation plan for Crescent Hill sets forth guidelines for the future management and improvement of the study area's transportation system. The recommended transportation plan is an application of the goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan targeted toward solving problems and issues facing Crescent Hill. The recommended transportation plan consists of a set of guidelines and a future transportation plan map (Figure 11-7). The guidelines represent recommendations for the future transportation network and the map illustrates some of the proposed recommendations. Once the recommended plan is approved by the Board of Aldermen, it will be used in several ways. The plan will be considered during the formulation of annual budgets for both general revenue and Community Development Block Grant funds. Proposed city-wide programs and other plans affecting Crescent Hill will be reviewed in relation to the neighborhood plan. The plan's recommendations may also be included in the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program as formulated by the Kentuckiana Regional Planning and Development Agency (KIPDA). a. Transportation Guidelines Excess Railroad Right-of-way 1. Maintain the excess right-of-way as green space and buffer between the railroad and adjacent development. 2. Work with the railroad to develop landscaped off-street parking areas in portions of the right-of-way adjoining commercial areas that need additional parking. 3. Construct pathways for bicycling and jogging in this right-of-way. 4. The busway corridor concept proposal for the Seaboard System right-of-way conflicts with other uses proposed for this corridor. The busway corridor along Frankfort Avenue should be deleted from the Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Future transportation plans affecting the Frankfort Avenue Corridor should be based on community input and should conform with the Crescent Hill Neighborhood Plan. Frankfort/Stilz/Hillcrest Intersection 5. Improve the off-set intersection of Stilz and Hillcrest Avenues with Frankfort Avenue. In the short term: - coordinate traffic signals along Frankfort Avenue; - provide two southbound lanes on Hillcrest, one for right and one for left turns; - restrict on-street parking on the north side of Frankfort from Stilz to Crescent, the north side of Frankfort from Hillcrest to Fenley, and on the west side of Stilz; - reconstruct the median on Stilz to effectively channel traffic and facilitate pedestrian movement; and - close the Forest Court - Norbourne Boulevard short cut around the Frankfort - Hillcrest intersection (see Figure 11-7A). In the long term: - seek reconstruction of this intersection, to eliminate the offset alignment, if justified by increased traffic volumes (see Figure 11-7B). 6. Restrict on-street parking during evening peak hours (4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M.) on the south side of Frankfort from Crescent to Stilz, only after alternative, off-street parking is provided for businesses located on this portion of Frankfort. 7. Improve emergency access to Forest Court and reduce the use of Norbourne Way as a short-cut around the Frankfort-Hillcrest intersection, by - installing a landscaped closure of the Forest Court railroad crossing; - straightening the alignment of Forest Court and Norbourne Way; and - widening the pavement (refer to Figure 11-7A).

Traffic Safety Issues 8. Provide adequate sight distance at all intersections. Correct existing shortcomings by: - trimming vegetation that creates visibility problems; and - removing parking that interferes with adequate sight distance. 9. Modify high accident intersections to improve vehicular safety, including: - study the need to adjust signal phases (lead green for left turns: westbound Lexington at Cannons, eastbound Lexington at Stilz); - installing "signal ahead" signs (Lexington Road at Cannons and Stilz); - improving clear sight distance and investigating the need for a traffic signal at the intersection of Hite Avenue and Brownsboro Road. 10. Construct a roadway linking North Galt Avenue with the street system north of the railroad tracks to provide emergency access and an alternative outlet for North Galt residents. 11. Improve the usability of the emergency access route between Claremont and Crescent Hill Park (publicize to residents, inform emergency services). 12. Seek installation of railroad crossing gates for at-grade crossings that currently lack these facilities. 13. Install three-way stop signs at the intersection of Ingle and McCready and at the intersection of Birchwood and Field. Alley Issues 14. Encourage residents to keep alleys free of litter; publicize property owners' maintenance responsibilities. Report persistent litter problems to enforcement officers. 15. Conduct a systematic, neighborhood-wide study of alleys and unbuilt alley rights-of-way to identify needs and establish a consensus among adjacent property owners on recommended improvements. This study should build on earlier field work and address: - alleys and rights-of-way needing better drainage; - alleys that need additional lighting; - alleys that need pavement repair; - unbuilt rights-of-way that should be constructed to alleviate parking and access problems; and - unbuilt rights-of-way that should be abandoned and become additional yard area for adjacent properties. Other Transportation Issues 16. Establish a consensus among adjacent property owners concerning the best response to narrow streets that cannot accommodate on-street parking and two-way traffic. Alternatives include: - continue existing conditions with constricted travel area, as means of slowing traffic and discouraging through traffic; - restrict on-street parking near intersections if serious maneuvering problems exist. 17. Study the street system in Crescent Hill to determine if street closings (creation of dead-end streets) are feasible. Narrow residential streets that carry significant through traffic should be the focus of this study (primarily between Grinstead Drive and Frankfort Avenue). The support of adjacent residents and the neighborhood as a whole is needed to achieve any street closing. 18. Provide amenities at frequently used transit stops, including benches, sidewalks and shelters. 19. Repair tripping hazards and construct missing segments of the sidewalk system along higher traffic volume streets and along highly traveled pedestrian routes (see Figures 11-6 and 11-71. 20. Redesign continuous curb cuts at Frankfort Avenue commercial uses, creating defined access points at appropriate locations. 21. Reduce conflicts between students and residents over on-street parking by: - encouraging the schools to provide additional off-street parking; - investigating parking restrictions that may be applied, to discourage student parking in residential areas. - marking parking spaces in the curb lane of Grinstead Drive, to encourage students to park there. 22. Connect existing discontinuous streets and serve new development by constructing new roadways as proposed in the Masonic Home redevelopment plan and linking Frankfort Avenue and Brownsboro Road at such time as the St. Joseph Children's Home is redeveloped. b. Transportation Map Figure 11-7, Transportation Recommendations, supplements the guidelines. Facility-specific recommendations are illustrated, including detailed drawings of proposed improvements at the Frankfort-Hillcrest-Stilz intersection, including Forest Court. Phasing and the relative importance of the improvements shown on these maps are discussed in part E of this report. D. IMPLEMENTATION The following section of the plan identifies agencies responsible for implementing the transportation guidelines identified in the previous section. Guidelines are listed with the implementation action for each recommendation. This section indicates estimated cost of proposed improvements where known, and identifies potential sources of funding. Implementation actions are also categorized as short range (1-2 years), medium range (2-5 years) and long range (over 5 years) actions in terms of the time frame in which implementation could be accomplished. 1. Seaboard Systems Right-of-way The railroad right-of-way paralleling Frankfort Avenue is the subject of four recommendations (guidelines 1 through 4). Implemen- tation of these recommendations is addressed below. a. Green Space and Buffer The Crescent Hill Community Council should continue to cooperate with Seaboard System on the maintenance of the green space. The Council is best able to represent the neighborhood's interests in keeping the grass cut and developing attractive tree plantings along the southern edge of the right-of-way. The current arrangement, under which the Council is reimbursed for maintenance expenses, is a good way to achieve these ends. The recent tree planting project funded by the Council and through Trees, Incorporated has met the need for trees along the entire length of the railroad right-of-way in Crescent Hill, for now. The Council should replace dead trees and consider implementing other beautification measures that may be proposed for the right-of-way. The following illustration shows a concept for additional landscaping and improvements that could be provided along the railroad right-of-way. b. Landscaped Parking Use of portions of the right-of-way for off-street parking serving adjacent businesses has been explored in the past. The Planning Committee has initiated discussion with the railroad to determine if use of rallroad property would be possible. The initial response by the railroad is negative. However, the Council should pursue this possibility with some further discussion. If negotiations are successful, areas shown on Figure 11-7 as needing parking improvements for businesses should be considered for off-street parking in the railroad right-of-way. Funding for parking areas should be provided by benefitting businesses. The business association should coordinate fund raising for this purpose. The cost of providing parking will depend on the amount of grading necessary, the depth of the parking area, and the amount of landscaping provided. For a level site, a 60 foot parking area (two rows of perpendicular parking along a two-way drive) costs approximately $5,000 per 100 linear feet (approximately 20 parking spaces). Landscaping could cost $1,000 per 100 linear feet. c. Bicycle/Jogging Path The Crescent Hill Community Council's Planning Committee has made inquiry with Seaboard Systems concerning construction of a bikeway and jogging path as part of the right-of-way. Although the railroad's initial response was unfavorable, the Committee should pursue this possibility, with the help of other groups who would benefit from the proposed path. If approval is received, funds will have to be raised. An 8-foot path would cost between $40,000 and $100,000 per mile, depending on the details of design and construction. To construct a path from Ewing Avenue to the Masonic Home would cost between $84,000 and $210,000. Possible funding sources would include the general fund, aldermanic special projects fund or community development funds, as well as private sources. Area businesses and residents, or a corporate sponsor could be approached for funding as well. No federal funds are available for bikeway construction at this time. An illustration of the bikeway and jogging path in relation to other uses of the railroad right-of-way is shown on the following illustration. d. Opposition to Busway The busway corridor proposed for the Frankfort Avenue railroad right-of-way is a long range proposal of the Metropolitan Transpor- tation Plan. The Crescent Hill Community Council can express its opposition to this concept by sending a letter to the Kentuckians Regional Planning and Development Agency (KIPDA). The Metropolitan Transportation Plan is being updated in the 1985-86 fiscal year by KIPDA staff; prompt action on this letter is desirable. It should be noted that the busway concept is not likely to be constructed in the next 20 years. Declining federal funds for mass transit, lower population projections for the metropolitan area and low ridership volumes in this corridor combine to reduce the probability that this project will materialize. 2. Roadway Improvements Improvements are recommended to portions of roadway and intersections in order to improve their ability to handle traffic and to improve traffic safety. Transportation Guidelines 5, 7, 9, 10 and 22 involve roadway improvements. The implementing agencies for improvements to roadways as recommended are the City Public Works Department and the Kentucky Tran- ' sportation Cabinet. The City Public Works Department would be responsible for improvements along Forest Court, Norbourne Way, Hillcrest, Hite and Stilz Avenues. Providing landscaping, straightening Norbourne Way, widening Forest Court to 18 feet and paving it would cost roughly $10,000. These improvements are shown on Figure 11-7A. More detailed design work and investigation of right-of-way needs are currently being done by the Works Department; this effort will include a more accurate cost estimate. The improvements can be accomplished within a year, if residents support them and the process of dedicating Forest Court.as a public street is completed. The improvements to Hillcrest and Stilz at Frankfort could be accomplished in the short term. An additional six feet of pavement would need to be constructed for a distance of 300 feet, to create two southbound lanes on Hillcrest. Relocating the sidewalk and widening the road are estimated to cost roughly $20,000. Costs related to widening the railroad crossing and any change to the crossing signal would be additional. Improvements to the median on Stilz should not entail major expense; no cost estimate is available. Improving the sight distance at the northeast corner of Hite and Brownsboro would require relocating a utility pole and cutting away a portion of the hillside. No cost estimate is available for these improvements. In the long range, reconstruction of the Stilz-Frankfort-Hillcrest intersection may be needed. The current estimate is $600,000, not including right-of-way acquisition, for the improvements shown on Figure 11-7B. Construction of an outlet for North Galt Avenue that is not blocked by the railroad tracks is proposed. The type of outlet should be addressed by affected residents, as part of the process of reviewing this plan. Alternatives exist in terms of where the new roadway would be built, and if it would be open for use all the time or merely be for emergency access. Analysis by the Works Department favors a 12 foot roadway linking Galt and Hite Avenues along the north side of the railroad. The 12 foot width is dictated by utility lines and large trees that prevent construction of a wider street. If there is neighborhood support, a roadway of this size could be a one-way street away from Galt, allowing residents to exit when a train is crossing. The cost of constructing the roadway is estimated to be $17,000. Right-of-way would need to be acquired, including one house. The current assessed value of property that would be needed for the roadway is $50,000. Funding sources for the improvements described above include the general fund, state funds and federal money through the community development block grant and the aldermanic discretionary fund. The Source: Crescent Hill Community Council, Planning Committee

Improvement Concept for the Railroad Corridor Works Department can identify the most appropriate and available funding source for a given improvement. Roadway construction is 1 also recommended at such time as the St. Joseph Orphanage and Masonic Home properties may be developed. A street layout for the Masonic Home was part of the development plan approved by the Planning Commission in 1984. The time frame for building roads through either of these properties is indefinite. Costs would be borne by the developers. 3. Further Study Three areas of the transportation plan require further study: alley improvements and unbuilt alleys; narrow streets with on-street parking; and possible creation of dead-end streets (guidelines 15, 16 and 17). A systematic investigation of these three topics throughout Crescent Hill is needed. This is envisioned as a data collection process focusing on specific conditions, followed by a planning process with full participation by affected residents. These three topics are closely interrelated. Dead-end streets will experience less traffic; this may reduce problems due to narrow streets with parking. Similarly, decisions about opening or closing alleys will affect on-street parking, and decisions relating to narrow streets. Because of these inter-relationships, a single study addressing all three topics may be desirable. Volunteers from the Planning Committee, the design assistance team and other neighborhood residents could be responsible for carrying out this study. Depending on the results of this study, various agencies would be involved and various implementation costs would be incurred. To dead-end a public street, petitions should be gathered from residents of the affected blocks, and from persons whose circulation patterns would be affected by the change. The decision to dead-end the street would be made by the Board of Aldermen and the Mayor. To close dedicated right-of-way, such as an unconstructed alley, requires a petition signed by the owners of 51% of the abutting properties. A public hearing is then held by the Planning Commis- sion, with a final decision by Jefferson Circuit Court. If closed by the court, the right-of-way is made part of adjacent parcels. For private streets and alleys, all property owners of portions of the right-of-way would have to agree to the change. Changes to private streets would require owners to pay legal fees; there would be no cost to process closure of public streets. Construction costs for creating a dead-end street depend on the type of closure, amount of landscaping, pavement removal, etc. Improvements needed in public alleys are eligible for public funds: Community Development funds or general fund. However, given the possible decline in federal funds and the allocation of available monies based on city-wide priorities, it is unlikely that Crescent Hill will receive major funding for alley improvements. Adjacent property owners may have to fund all or a portion of the cost of paving an unbuilt alley, drainage improvements or additional lighting, if they wish to see these improvements made. These costs can be significant. Asphalt paving costs approximately $20 per square yard; street lights cost $110 to $150 per light per year. To obtain a street light, 75% of the properties affected by the light must petition the Works Department to install one. Lighting installed by private individuals may be more readily achieved than requesting a street light. The typical mercury vapor outside light fixture can be purchased for less than $50. Implementation of parking restrictions on narrow streets is a low cost item. Areas where this may be appropriate can be referred to the Works Department. 4. Emergency Access for Reservoir Park The availability of the emergency access route from Claremont to Reservoir Avenue through Crescent Hill Park has been publicized among the emergency services. Residents can be informed of this route and how to use it as part of the process of reviewing this plan. The alderman or the Community Council may want to provide written instructions on use of this access route. This should be undertaken as soon as possible; no significant costs are involved. 5. Sight Distance Two measures are proposed for the numerous intersections identified on Figure 11-7 as lacking adequate sight distance. On-street parking should be reduced on the west side of Peterson near the alley south of Frankfort Avenue. This action requires participation by the Public Works Department and support by nearby residents. Availability of alternative parking, and support for the restriction by residents are considered by the Works Department in determining if on-street parking should be restricted. The Planning Committee should contact residents of the immediate vicinity, to see if they would support restricting parking near the alley. If residents support this change, the Committee should send a letter to the alderman and Works Department officials to initiate work on this recommendation. A more widespread visibility problem is vegetation that limits sight distance at intersections. City ordinance prohibits vegetation other than tree trunks at a height between 2 feet and 6 feet, within 35 feet of an intersection (S93.20, 93.21, Codified General Ordinances). The drawing in Appendix M illustrates this prohibition. The Planning Committee should publicize this ordinance through the newsletter. Property owners at intersections identified as having visibility problems should be contacted directly and encouraged to comply. Properties that are not brought into compliance voluntarily can be reported to the Department of Public Works for enforcement. Both of these implementation measures can be accomplished in the short range, without any special funding needs. 6. Traffic Signalization and Control Improved traffic signalization and control is recommended for several intersections and areas in Crescent Hill in order to facilitate a smooth flow of traffic and reduce traffic accidents. Trans- portation guidelines 5 (part), 9 (part), and 13 involve improved traffic signalization and control. The implementing agency responsible for installation of traffic control devices such as traffic signals and signs is the City Public Works Department. The Traffic Engineering section of Public Works recently completed installation of nine new traffic controllers to coordinate traffic signals along Frankfort Avenue from Mellwood Avenue through Hillcrest Avenue, at a cost of $60,000. The new equipment will keep a continuous green light for Frankfort Avenue at Hillcrest when trains are blocking Hillcrest. Changes to the signals on Lexington Road would require purchase of new traffic controller mechanisms; these cost $6,000 to $8,000 each. Lexington Road is maintained by the state. The new controllers would be paid for by the state, if the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet approves the project. New traffic signs are also recommended for Lexington Road. "Signal Ahead" signs are proposed for the intersections with Cannons Lane and Stilz Avenue. A "Hidden Entrance" sign should be considered for the Cochran Hill area of Lexington Road. These signs would require approval by the state, and can be financed through operations costs. Stop signs for the intersections of Ingle and McCready, Field and Birchwood can be installed with operating funds, if adjacent residents sign a petition seeking their installation. Installation of railroad crossing bars with flashing lights and bells is recommended for three locations in the study area (Figure 11-71. Implementation will depend on action by Seaboard System Railroad. Installation and maintenance costs are significant: $50,000 per crossing to install, and $1,500 annual maintenance costs. The Planning Committee should contact the railroad and encourage provision of these facilities. 7. Parking Restrictions Parking restrictions are recommended for various locations in Crescent Hill. Generally these restrictions are recommended to increase traffic lanes for moving vehicles by eliminating parking lanes. Transportation guidelines 5 (part), 6 and 8 (part) involve parking restrictions. For specific recommendations refer to these guidelines in the preceding subsection. The implementation agency responsible for restricting parking is the City of Louisville Public Works Department. The Public Works Department installs signs designating restricted areas and its Traffic Engineering section is responsible for determining where parking restrictions are appropriate. In locations where on-street parking is required by adjacent residents, their concurrence in restricting parking is sought. However, the restrictions proposed for Frankfort Avenue would not affect any residential properties, nor are there any abutting commercial uses. The restriction proposed for the first 100 feet along the west side of Stilz should be discussed with the adjacent commercial property owner; The Planning Committee could assist in making this contact. Parking restrictions on Peterson Avenue are discussed in item 5. Costs relative to implementation of parking restrictions would be negligible, so no special source of funding would be required to undertake implementation. The timeframe required for implementation of parking restrictions is short. 8. Redesign of Curb Cuts Existing curb cuts that run from property line to property line and do not define vehicular access points should be redesigned (guideline 20). This issue should be addressed by the business association, with support from the Community Council. Businesses should be encouraged to improve the layout of their parking areas. This should be done in conjunction with the addition of pavement markings for parking spaces in commercial blockfaces. Parking ih the curb lane will reduce the potential for random driving across the sidewalk. As part of any reconstruction or expansion of parking areas, the Department of Public Works reviews parking lots and curb cuts; continuous curb cuts have to be redesigned. The time frame for implementing this measure is indefinite; parking space markings will partially implement it in the short term. Businesses who choose to define the driveways into their parking lots can do so inexpensively with concrete wheel stops. 9. Sidewalks Some areas with high levels of pedestrian activity lack sidewalks or have sidewalks that are in disrepair. This presents a hazard to pedestrians. In order to improve safety for pedestrians several areas in Crescent Hill are recommended for sidewalk construction or repair. Transportation guideline 19 involves sidewalk improvements. Sidewalk improvements, whether construction of new sidewalks or repair of existing sidewalks, are the responsibility of the adjacent land owner. The land owner must arrange for the work to be done and for funds to finance the project. Land owners could band together for larger projects in order to reduce costs to the individual land owner. A new program beginning in the City's 1986 fiscal year will provide low interest loans to repair tripping hazards affecting sidewalks in front of residential property recognized by the Works Department. No payback is required if the resident stays at that address for five years or more. Construction of new sidewalks costs approximately $10 per linear foot. The Community Council or the Planning Committee should contact residents whose sidewalks are hazardous according to Figure 11-6 and encourage them to make necessary repairs. Residents of Brownsboro and Lexington Roads should also be contacted about building sidewalks. These improvements could be accomplished in the short to medium range, depending on resident support for better sidewalks. 10. Student Parking Conflicts between residents and students over on-street parking can be reduced by several different measures (guideline 21). Providing pavement markings that delineate parking spaces in the curb lanes of Grinstead Drive may induce Seminary students to park there, reducing the number of cars on Pleasant View. The Public Works Department can provide pavement markings without a special allocation of funds. A more direct way to reduce student parking on Pleasant View and McCready would be to restrict parking during a portion of the school day. This concept reportedly has been rejected in the past by area residents who did not wish to be inconvenienced in this manner. The Planning Committee should determine if this resistance still exists, or if there is a desire to establish parking restrictions. Resident feedback on this point could be sought during the review process for this plan. Another approach to reducing parking conflicts that requires resident input pertains to the southeast corner of Godfrey and Meadowlark. Two lots at this location were cleared for parking, but deed restrictions prohibit their use in this fashion. In the past residents of Godfrey Avenue have refused to waive this restriction. If the Seminary developed a plan for screening the parking lot that was acceptable to area residents, it would provide an attractive alternative parking area for students who currently park on Pleasant View. During the plan review process, the Planning Committee should determine if area residents would be interested in reviewing design options for off-street parking on this site. 11. Alley Maintenance Several actions can be taken to keep alleys free of litter and debris (guideline 14). As a starting point, the Crescent Hill newsletter should be used to publicize the problem and property owners' responsibilities. By city ordinance (Ord.12, Series 1980), owners are responsible for controlling litter to the middle of the street and alley abutting their property. In addition, city ordinance prohibits setting out trash in bags, because they allow animals to scatter trash. This educational effort could be followed up by neighborhood work days, when volunteers focus on cleaning up the alleys, trimming trees, etc. Persistent, localized litter problems may require enforcement action. The environmental inspection division of the city's Housing Department 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. 12. Transit Stop Amenities Facilities for transit users are recommended for Crescent Hill (guideline 18). The locations with highest transit usage and locations for which shelters have been requested are shown on Figure 11-7. Lexington Road and Frankfort Avenue are state maintained routes; the typical TARC shelter with advertising is not allowed along these streets. Funds raised by area businesses, the institutions that would benefit from the facilities or the Community Council could be used to provide shelters or benches and paved waiting areas. The cost would depend on the design of the facilities installed. For purposes of comparison, TARC's shelters cost $2,000; benches installed by the Parks Department cost $400, installed. There is inadequate public right-of-way in front of Sacred Heart Academy to install a transit shelter. If a public facility were to be provided there, donation of an easement would be necessary. E. PRIORITIES In this final section of the Transportation plan for the Crescent Hill neighborhood, priorities are established. Plan recommendations have been placed in one of four classifications: highest priority, high, medium or low priority. These classifications indicate the relative significance of each recommendation, the degree to which a particular improvement to the local transportation system is desired. The prioritization process is based on the reality of limited resources: public funds, agency personnel and study area residents. Because of these limitations, resources should be focused on higher priority recommendations. It should be noted that priorities are likely to change frequently. As progress is made in certain aspects of the neighborhood and as new issues face the community, priorities will shift. Re-assessment of priorities on a regular basis, therefore, is desirable. This can be part of the annual planning and scheduling process of the Crescent Hill Commun- ity Council and its committees. The following table presents the recommendations of the plan as prioritized by the Planning Committee in June of 1985. Plan recommendations rather than implementation measures were prioritized. Implementation measures will change over time, as government programs are replaced, conditions change and new actions to implement the Plan are devised. Plan recommendations will change gradually, as conditions in the study area evolve.

Transportation Recommendations Rank Assigned Implenentation Measures

HIGHEST PRIORITY -

4. The busway corridor should be deleted from the Metro- 1 politan Transportation Plan; future transportation plans should be based on community input.

8. Provide adequate sight distance at all intersections. 1 D. 5 1

14. Encourage residents to keep alleys free of litter; report 2 persistent litter problems.

15. Conduct a systematic neighborhood-wide study of alleys 3 0. 3 and unbuilt alley rights-of-way

16. Establish a consensus concerning the best response to 3 D. 3; 0. 7 narrow streets that cannot accommodate on-street parking and two-way traffic.

HIGH PRIORITY

1. Maintain the excess right-of-way as green space and 4 buffer between the railroad and adjacent development.

2. Work with the railroad to develop landscaped off-street 4 parking areas in portions of the right-of-way.

9. Modify high accident intersections to improve vehicular 5 D. 2; D. 6 safety (lexington at Cannons and Stilz, Hite at Browns- boro).

17. Study the street system in Crescent Hill to determine if 5 street closings (creation of dead-end streets) are feasible.

5. Improve the intersection of Stilz and Hillcrest Avenues 6 with Frankfort Avenue in the short term. Transportation Recommendations Rank Assigned Implementation Measures

HIGH PRIORITY

5a. Reconstruct this intersection to eliminate the offset 6 a1 ignment.

12. Seek installation of railroad crossing gates. 6

13. Install stop signs. 6

MEDIUM PRIORITY

6. Restrict on-street parking during evening peak hours on 7 the south side of Frankfort from Crescent to Stilz, after alternative off-street parking is provided.

21. Reduce conflicts between students and residents over on- 7 street parking.

7. Improve emergency access to Forest Court and reduce the 8 use of Norbourne Way as a short-cut.

11. Improve the useability of the emergency access route 9 between Claremont and Crescent Hill Park.

3. Construct pathways for bicycling and jogging in the rail- 10 road right-of-way.

LOW PRIOR1 TY

20. Redesign continuous curb cuts at Frankfort Avenue 11 commercial uses.

10. Establish a consensus among North Galt Avenue residents 12 concerning emergency access.

18. Provide amenities at frequently used transit stops. 12 D. 12

22. Connect existing discontinuous streets and serve new 13 development (Masonic Home redevelopment plan and St. Joseph Children's Home).

19. Construct missing segments of the sidewalk system. Functional Street Classification

Legend

UIIIW Interstate Highway - Major Arterials II I I Minor Arterials umuluu Collectors

4L2P Lane Utilization [four lanes, two of which are used for parking) Streets and Alleys on Original Plat, but Not Actually Built

Insufficient Width for 2 Way Traffic & Parking

Sources: The Com~rehensivePlan, Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission, 1975; Field Survey, Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission, April, 1985.

Figure 11-1

Private Streets and Alleys.

LEGEND -Private ownership - built 111111111111 Private ownership - not built

Source: Subdivision plats and deeds.

Figure 11-2

LEGEND -Private ownership - built anrnnnnultn Private ownership - not built

Source: Subdivision plats and .deeds. Adjusted Daily Traffic Counts

LEGEND ogoON Average Daily Traffic (Northbound or Eastbound) oooos Average Daily Traffic (Southbound or Westbound) 0Location of Traffic Count

Figure 11-3

Bike Routes and TARC Routes

LEGEND

-TARC Routes TARC Routes

@ Market Street @ Muhammad Ali Boulevard * @ Oak Street @ Eastern Parkway* @ ~iddletown0 @ Hounz Lane - Westport Road * Wheelchair Lift on Selected Trips 0 Express Bus on Selected Trips

Streets and Alleys on Original Plat, but Not Actually Built

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

Figure 11-4

Traffic Control Devices

Legend

Traffic Signals

Stop Signs

Railroad Crossing Gates

Railroad Crossing Signals

Railroad Crossing Signs

One Way Street

Begin Two Way

Streets and Alleys on Original Plat, but Not Actually Built

Source : Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission, April, 1985

Figure 11-5

. -

F ?- t

,!~ I

c," I, CO"... --~ ', Jon" *. sn.no..ln , , , '

BROWNSB0I)OPO "/'LIT€ i

. ,

i- I

'. '.

H..,",. *lido.. and oronan. *on. and .~. s..lnorl "Illas. Inllrm*." A,orln.nl. ,

, , ' , ' ,

Sheet D

~ ~

CRESCENT HILL .% ~n ~-. m m ,I., ,a,",#,. NEIGHBORHOOD Traffic Control Devices 7,,,,m,,. L,",," 1 ...... C""".. w...... C ...... o. DJ L Pedestrian Facilities

Legend - Sidewalks Crosswalks

WalkIWait Signals

A ' Wheelchair Ramps

Possible Tripping Hazards (approximate location)

, Streets and Alleys on Original Plat, but Not Actually Built Source: Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission, April, 1985

Figure 11-6

Transportation Recommendations

LEGEND

lmprove high accident 0.~ntersection

lmprove clear sight A distance Unbuilt alley right-of-way; return to adjacent properties or construct alley to ease parking shortage mr-cm lmprove parking for businesses; landscaped parking in railroad right-of-way; curb lanes marked for parking r==- Restrict on-street parking

111111111 Construct bikeway and jogging path in railroad right-of-way - Construct sidewalk @ Provide amenities for transit users (shelter, benches, sidewalk)

Figure 11- 7

Figure II-7A during evening peak hours on south side of Frankfort west of Stilz, after construction of off-street parking.

Figure 11-78 Appendices ...

APPENDIX A Historic Background B Neighborhood Sales Estimate C Definition of Structural Classifications D Demographic Data E Employment and Income Data F Housing Data G Crime Rates H Problem Identification Session I Personal Consumption Expenditures J Evaluation of Problem Intersections K Analysis of Lexington Road at Alta Vista L Cost Estimate: Frankfort/Hillcrest/Stilz M Clear Sight Distance Illustration N Documentation of review of the Draft Crescent Hill Plan APPENDIX A: Historical Background of Crescent Hill

The following material is excerpted from Louisville Survey East, City of Louisville, May 1980, pages 56 - 64, copyright by Louisville Historic Landmarks and Preservation Districts Commission. Reproduced with permission. During the 1880's, the suburb of Crescent Hill had just begun to emerge along Frankfort Avenue. Several factors played major roles in the development of Crescent Hill. In the first place, the Louisville, Cincinnati and Lexington Railroad and the Crescent Hill Railway Company's streetcar line along Payne Street provided suburban commuters with direct access to downtown businesses and offices. Eventually the L C & L stopped for commuters at Crescent Hill Grove at North Hite Avenue, and Reservoir Park near Eastover Court. Another salient element in Crescent Hill's development was its topography. In contrast with the flat land of much of central, western, and southern Louisville north of Iroquois Park, the rugged hillsides and deep valleys of Crescent Hill offered the possibility of a suburban lifestyle which seemed truly Arcadian in character. At the same time, geological attributes which seem to make Crescent Hill a sylvan retreat, removed from the hustle and bustle of the city, also affected the neighborhood's physical configuration. Thus, while subdivisions in most older Louisville neighborhoods were platted according to a fairly rigid gridiron pattern, the vast majority of those in Crescent Hill were laid out in an irregular fashion, including some winding roads, short courts, and dead end streets while preserving scenic vistas and open spaces. Finally, development was encouraged by the parklike setting created by the Fair Grounds and the Louisville Water Company's Crescent Hill Reservoir. By 1880, the Fair Grounds had been a Louisville institution for more than a quarter of a century, but the Reservoir and its accompanying gatehouse and general superintendent's house were another matter. During the mid 1870s it had become apparent that the water company had to increase pressure and expand its storage capacity if the growing city's need for water was to be met in the future. In the fall of 1876 the Water Company purchased two tracts of land between Frankfort Avenue and Brownsboro Road. The larger of the tracts, consisting of 100 acres, was purchased from 2. M. Sherley, at a cost of $60,000 while a smaller tract of 10 acres was acquired from members of the Arterburn family for $8,000. Construction on the reservoir began in April 1877. When completed two year later the facility included two storage basins with a total capacity in excess of 100 million gallons. Moreover, the new reservoir, built at an elevation of 179 feet above the low water mark of the Ohio River, was 33 feet higher than the existing 10 million gallon facility. This rise in elevation increased water pressure from 35 pounds to 48 pounds per-square inch. The architectural highlights of the reservoir are the gate-house and general superintendent's house, both of which were designed by Chief Engineer Charles Hermany in a rich High Victorian Gothic style. Built of rusticated limestone, the one and a half story gate-house has rich exterior walls which are pierced by recessed, attenuated windows which are capped by solid-looking, smooth stone hood molds. What makes the gatehouse particularly striking is its skyline, which is composed of steeply-pitched gabled roofs, highlighted by carved stone pitchers and of iron decorative railings which accent the roof crests. Likewise, the one-story superintendent's house is built of rusticated limestone set upon a basement level. The structure includes simple, segmentally-arched windows and recessed, rectangu- lar window pairs separated by smooth stone, engaged columns with foliated capitals. The steeply-pitched roof was shingled with slate, and like the gatehouse, the roof crests include pointed, cast-iron railings, which were designed and manufactured by the local firm of F.W. Merz and Company. - Formally designed, beautifully landscaped, and carefully maintained, the Crescent Hill Reservoir attracted community attention from the 1 beginning. Its grassy enbankment, topped by a grand promenade of flagstones and a continuous cast iron railing, created the impres- sion of a neat sloping lawn and attracted Sunday sightseers in droves. Such an attraction was not lost upon land developers, who l recognized that the reservoir's large open spaces helped to provide and maintain the open, rural character which made suburban living so - attractive. Indeed, a long-standing tradition suggests that it was i the beauty of the reservoir and its setting that provided the name - of Crescent Hill. According to the legend, Mrs. Thomas S. Kennedy was driving her carriage through the grounds of the still unfinished reservoir when she observed that the hill and lake where the basins are located formed the shape of a Crescent. The image caught on and before long the name Crescent Hill was in common usage.

But the subdivision process itself, which consisted largely of the - inexorable partition by heirs of the original pre-Civil War estates which dotted the area, began much earlier in the 1870's. The I initial focus of development was the Fair Grounds. In 1871, John T. - Thatcher, through realtor S.S. Meddis, partitioned, promoted, and sold the tract known as Glenwood, which lay east of Stilz Avenue between Frankfort Avenue and Hermany Court on land that is today owned by the Louisville Water Company. Contributing to the lands saleability was the fact that it overlooked the Fairgrounds. Depending upon location and degree of improvement, land in Glenwood brought prices that ranged from $750 to $1,000 per acre for some improved lots to more $12,500 for nine aqd one-half acre tracts of improved land. Approximately four years after Thatcher's Glenwood Subdivision was platted, Lewis Lentz laid out his Fairview Subdivi- sion on a tract of land north of Frankfort Avenue opposite the Thomas Kennedy estate along either side of Crescent Avenue.

Lentz's Fair View Subdivision also ushered in a nine year moratorium - on new land subdivision in Crescent Hill, a hiatus which one his- - torian attributes to the depressing effects of the panic of 1873. Between 1875 and 1884, the only major project was construction of the Crescent Hill Reservoir. Nevertheless, by 1884 enough people had constructed homes in the area to convince the General Assembly to incorporate the Town of Crescent Hill. The charter authorized certain taxes and improvements, but, as a testimony to the town's limited municipal status, it deprived the trustees of any power to interfere in the operation of the Louisville Water Company or involve itself in the management and conduct of the railroad and streetcar lines within the town's corporate limits. But incorporation did help to create a sense of community spirit and individual responsibility in the growing town. The town hired a night watchman to guard property, but most "crimes" were investigated by residents themselves and the charter mandated that each adult inhabitant participate in volunteer fire services. Schools, churches, and Sunday schools developed quickly, frequently meeting initially in private homes. Permanent buildings would be constructed once funds became available. The first community project was construction of a school, which also served as a weekend social gathering place, as a town hall, and as a church for Methodists and Presbyterians until their own edifices were completed. Along with the incorporation came a new surge of subdivision development. As if to underscore the changing state of affairs, 1884 witnessed the platting of the first subdivision to carry the name of - Crescent Hill. The developer was George K. Speed, and the subdivision was Crescent Hill Subdivision No. 1, an irregularly shaped tract between Brownsboro Road and Frankfort Avenue. Like numerous -- other Crescent Hill property owners, Speed named the streets for members of his family, in this case, his children. Thus, the tract is bounded on the west by Jane Street, on the east by Ewing Avenue, and is bisected north to south by Keats Avenue. In a manner befit- J ting its shape, the subdivision was platted according to an irregular grid pattern. Most lots measured 50 by 200 feet, and the average lot sold for $500. Advertlsements boasted of the neighbor- - hood's beauty and prestige as well as its picturesque altitude, healthfulness, and favorable transportation connections. Five years after Speed laid out his subdivision, heirs began to partition Thomas Kennedy's Fair View estate, with Kennedy's Crescent Hill subdivision being staked out along both sides of Kennedy Court between Frankfort Avenue and present day Grinstead Drive. The following year, S. S. and Jennie Hite recorded a subdivision called Crescent Hill Park along either side of Hite Avenue north of Frank- fort Avenue.

The tempo of growth picked up considerably during the 1890s and continued strongly into the early decades of the twentieth century. Between 1890 and 1917, some 25 new subdivisions were laid out and recorded in Crescent Hill. In 1890, M.E. Galt and T.G. Galt laid out Galt's Subdivision in Crescent Hill, located between Peterson Avenue and S. S. Hite's Crescent Hill Park. A major surge of development began the following year, when three new subdivisions were laid out on the south side of Frankfort Avenue between Jane Street on the west and the Kennedy estate on the east. On the western end, A. W. Randolph staked out Raymond's Subdivision, which extended from Jane Street to Peterson Avenue between Frankfort Avenue and Grinstead Drive. Two blocks to the east, Valentine and Frederick Franck platted Valentine Franck's Subdivision which extended along either side of Franck Avenue from Frankfort Avenue almost to Longview Avenue. Somewhat further to the east, Martin and John Faust, along with realtors S.S. Meddia and Charles Southwick, platted Faust's Morning Side Addition, an irregularly shaped tract which stretched along both sides of Bayly Avenue from Frankfort Avenue to Grinstead Drive.

But development in 1891 was not confined to the south side of Frankfort Avenue. The largest single subdivision platted that year was Reservoir Avenue between the reservoir and Fenly Avenue. The developer was the Reservoir Park Company, which appears to have been associated with the Mechanics Trust Company.

The boom continued into 1892, when Jennie E. Speed subdivided Chatsworth, the former estate of manufacturer Joshua B. Speed. The tract included most of the land adjoining Peterson, Ewing, and Calvin Avenues north of Frankfort Avenue. The following year, the Columbia Finance and Trust Company platted Aubindale, a subdivision demarcated generally by Frankfort Avenue on the south, the Fair Grounds on the west, Field Avenue on the north, and Linden on the east. But the creation of Aubindale marked the beginning of another break in Crescent Hill's development, precipitated this time by the panic of 1893 and the severe depression that followed. Despite the lull in development, Crescent Hill had grown enough since its incorporation that Louisville officials began to look upon the suburb with a longing eye. In 1893, the General Assembly enacted legislation which authorized first class cities to annex surrounding territory, including smaller incorporated towns, unless 75 percent of the citizens of the affected territory could demon- strate that annexation would "materially retard.the prosperity of the [annexing] city and of the owners of real estate in and inhabi- tants of the territory sought to be annexed." The following year, the General Council passed an ordinance to annex Crescent Hill and two other suburbs on the city's fringe. Louisville sought through annexation to enlarge its population and broaden its tax base. But many residents of Crescent Hill and the other satellite towns fought to maintain their independence. For some it was a matter of snobbish- ness. As one Crescent Hill resident recalled decades later, "We thought we were too good to belong to the city." For others, it was a matter of maintaining home rule and avoiding payment of higher taxes. On the other hand, some newer residents of the community favored annexation out of a desire for better urban services and a belief that being a resident of the growing, larger city was in itself a mark of pride and prestige. Opponents of annexation apparently out-numbered proponents, however, and in 1894 the town of Crescent Hill filed suit in the Common Pleas Division of Circuit Court, maintaining that 75 percent of the town's residents favored maintenance of the status quo. The petition further questioned Louisville's need for the land because "there is now within the corporate limits a vast territory of land unimproved and many thousands of vacant lots." But the fight against annexation failed, and in June 1894 Crescent Hill dropped its suit and yielded to annexation. As an economic recovery set in during the late 18901s, Louisville experienced a new wave of suburban land development. Much of the new activity was in Crescent Hill. In 1899, James E. and Carrie Bell platted J.E. Bell's Subdivision in Crescent Hill. Located upon a small tract on the south side of Frankfort Avenue between Ken- nedy's Crescent Hill's Subdivision and Thatcher's Glenwood Subdivi- sion, it was the last development platted in the neighborhood during the nineteenth century. Two years later, Nancy Jane Birch began subdividing the farm of George Birch, who had been a prominent livestock dealer at the Bourbon Stockyards. Beginning with the northern half of the tract along Birchwood between Faust's Morning Side Addition and Kennedy's Crescent Hill Subdivision, she replatted the subdivision in 1913 to take in all of the Birch property between Frankfort Avenue and Grinstead Drive. In 1902, Peter Ellwanger, executor of the will of D.F. Ellwanger, subdivided an irregular tract of his family's land lying along the southern part of Hite Avenue between Frankfort Avenue and Hillside Avenue. The following year, Samuel English resubdivided a section of Lewis Lentz's Fair View Subdivision along English Avenue between Crescent Avenue and Stilz Avenue north of Frankfort. That same year, Charles D. Adams initiated development of the Inglenook Addition to Crescent Hill. Constitutingthe easternmost subdivision in the neighborhood, Inglenooks's first section lay along the south side of Ingle Avenue between McCready Avenue and Cannons Lane approximately midway between Frankfort Avenue and Lexington Road. Four years later, surveyor Ben Ford, Fred Diefenbach, Jr., and Hy Tobe added a second section immediately to the south along Richard Avenue. Only one subdivision was laid out in Crescent Hill during 1906, and it was nothing more than a resubdivision of a section of Keats Avenue in Raymond's Subdivision of 1891. The subdivider was J. H. G. Wallbaun. But in 1907, three new subdivisions were laid out, besides the addition to Inglenook. The largest of the three was Blue Grass Addition, developed by realtor Charles M. Phillips and located along either side of Pennsylvania Avenue between Brownsboro Road and Frankfort Avenue. Capitalizing upon its distant suburban location, Phillips called Blue Grass Addition "The Crown of Crescent Hill," and advertised as the place where one could build a "modern Bungalow." Prices, he added, were "so low up here . . . that you can buy enough ground to spread out and have a garden, fruit trees, and chickens, etc., etc." The year 1907 also witnessed the ini- tiation of Cherokee Heights, one of the first subdivisions developed in Crescent Hill by a land company. Developed by the Cherokee Heights Land Company, this small tract is located on the north side of Lexington Road between Stilz Avenue and Cherry Lane. The smallest, but possibly most heavily advertised development of 1907 was Eastover Park, a one-block tract bounded by Frankfort Avenue, Sacred Heart Lane, Gardner Avenue, and Crestwood Avenue. Owned by A. McVaw, the subdivision was developed by realtor Clarence Gardiner. In a 1908 advertisement, Gardiner and Company, described Eastover Park as the expression of a conceit - an effort to prove a theory. It is the work of a man who insists that beauty is by no means the exclussive possession of the rich, who believes that we can have beautiful homes for the same money we are spending for ugly, commonplace houses, and that houses of good architecture . . . hold their value permanently if well placed in a proper environment, for the effect of the most beautiful house is lost if placed upon a crowded lot in a narrow street. To attract the middle-class buyer to Eastover Park, Gardiner advertised a broad boulevard guarded by a classic gateway and lined by concrete gutters, curbs and sidewalks; colonial, patio, and bungalow type homes designed by such local architects as Arthur R. Smith; deep lots and 95 foot setbacks; and payment terms that were better than rent. New subdivisions were laid out on an almost annual basis until 1916, although no single year witnessed so many new projects as 1907. Among these new subdivisions were several developed by professional land companies. In 1908, Crescent Hill reached its southern-most point when the Eastern Realty Company, headed by banker Atilla Cox, platted a subdivision called Eastleigh. Located upon a scenic tract that lay between Grinstead Drive and Lexington Road, Eastleigh provided a bridge which united Crescent Hill with the northern edge of Cherokee Park. But the highlight of Eastleight is its site plan. Apparently in an attempt to treat the land as sensitively as possible, the developers took advantage of the tract's hills and ravines to lay out such narrow winding ways as Cross Hill, Top Hill, and Foot Hill roads. In 1909, the Cherokee Heights Land Company platted Hill Crest, its second Crescent Hill subdivision, which was laid out along Hill Crest Avenue between Lentz's Subdivision of Air View and Blue Grass Manor. The following year, Harry and Eliza Dumesnil recorded the Dumesnil and Rowland Subdivision, bounded by Frankfort, Peterson, and Galt Avenues and Grinstead Drive. In 1910, George Stilz, president of Stilz Realty, developed Stilz Subdivision, one of the period's largest such enterprises, upon a tract of family land bounded today by Stilz Avenue, Grinstead Drive, Lexington Road, and the grounds of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. The only subdivision recorded in the neighborhood between 1911 and 1915 was Nancy Jane Birch's 1913 resubdivision of Birchwood. But in 1915, two more very small tracts were laid out-Shippen's Subdivision by E.S. and Ada Shippen, between Hollywood Trail and Field Avenue west of Birchwood Avenue, and Weisser Addition, by F.D. Weisser, near the southwest corner of the intersection of Frankfort Avenue and Cannons Lane. The last activity in Crescent Hill before World War I to resemble a subdivision was Ambrose and Annie E. Burner's dedication of several streets which overlapped the southern portcons of Faust's Morning Side Addition and Ellwanger's Subdivision. Although most of th the land available for residential development in Crescent Hill had been subdivided by 1917, more than a dozen additional subdivisions were recorded during the interwar period. Most were small and several were merely replattings of older subdivisions. But a handful of new subdivisions deserve note. Between 1921 and 1927, three new subdivisions - Hollywood in 1921, Ridge-Dale in 1912, and Idlewylde in 1927 - filled in most of the available space along Brownsboro Road between Ewing and Birchwood Avenues. In 1921, the Wheeler Company, Inc., headed by Blakemore Wheeler, platted the Upland Field "Cherokee" Subdivision between Eastleight and the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary campus. Finally, the ten-year period between 1922 and 1932 saw the creation of four small subdivisions along the south side of Frankfort Avenue between Eastover Park and Cannons Lane. After 1932, as a consequence of the depression in the housing industry and the general unavailability of undeveloped land, not a single subdivision was laid out in Crescent Hill between Jane Street on the west and Fenley Avenue and Cannons Lane on the east. In 1908 the president of the Crescent Hill Improvement Club asked realtor Clarence Gardiner to explain why he operated in Crescent Hill. In his response, Gardiner placed appropriate stress upon such technical innovations as the electric streetcar, which made suburban land more valuable and suburban living more accessible to the central city. But the main purpose of his statement was to underscore Crescent Hill's true uniqueness: Crescent Hill stands alone in this regard - it is our only suburban district, and it will remain suburban. Crescent Hill, for the most part, is laid out on the village plan, with wide streets and big yard, with the tendency to open the new streets even wider than the old, until the district has taken on a character so thoroughly suburban that no amount of increased population can ever change the suburban atmosphere of the place, and with the increasing demand for room, and yet more room, that comes with education in the better things of life, Crescent Hill will continue to grow in popularity and value, for it is the only suburb of today that is not the city of tomorrow, - its suburban character is too firmsly fixed to ever be changed, - the family seeking the joys of the country with the conveniences of the city has nowhere else to go. Nearly half a century later, local journalist Grady Clay noted quite logically that most of Gardiner's praise for Crescent Hill "sounds like optimistic poppycock today." By the late 1950s, Clay noted, Crescent Hill had indeed become "engulfed by Louisville." It was "no longer a separate suburb, but an old city neighborhood," with many of the attendant features which that label frequently connotes - closely built homes, large houses which had been converted to apartments, and nearly complete turnover in population since World War 11. And yet, with a degree of chauvinism befitting a resident of the neighborhood of which he was writing, Clay demonstrated that Crescent Hill had indeed maintained a large measure of the uniqueness and stability of which Gardiner had spoken 48 years earlier. Central to that uniqueness was, of course, the influence of Crescent Hill's terrain, which already has been discussed at some length. Equally important is the variety of housing styles which is found in the neighborhood. In addition to the remaining antebellum mansions are several large homes built by affluent Crescent Hill residents after the Civil War. Most notable are the Peterson and Field Houses. Located at 301 South Peterson Avenue, the former structure was built about 1870 for tobacco merchant Joseph Peterson. The design, attributed to the distinguished Louisville architect Henry Whitestone, combines the blockiness and severity of the pre-Civil War Greek Revival mode with the much more timely features of the Italianate style. Set upon a limestone foundation, the two-story brick structure has the asymmetrical massing and central tower characteristic of the Italian villa style, along with such other appropriate features as a bracketed cornice and tall, segmental- arched windows topped with cast-iron hoods. As if to say it is a Louisville home, each window hood has a modified fleur-de-lis motif in the center. Of similar stature is the Judge Emmet Field House, located at 2909 Field Avenue. Built around 1870 and purchased by Judge Field in 1886, this two-story country villa also has strong Italianate features such as bracketed cornice, a low gabled central hall, quoined corners, and window pediments which are broken and straightened at each end. But more important than such gems as the Peterson and Field houses in shaping the residential character of Crescent Hill is the variety of solid middle and working class homes which line the neighborhood's streets and courts. Unlike many other Louisville neighborhoods, there are very few streets in Crescent Hill where one is confronted with block after block of homes having similar, or even identical, massing and materials. The vast majority of houses in the neighborhood are of frame construction, no doubt because wood was cheaper than brick or stone,, but the neighborhood also has its share of brick, stone, and stucco homes. Likewise, most streets have a variety of styles, mixing the Queen Anne and other Victorian styles with shotgun cottages, bungalows, and historical revival houses. The result, especially when combined with the neighborhood's topography, is a strong sense of exuberance and vitality. This is all the more striking when one realizes that houses in Crescent Hill are devoid of the sumptuous ornamentation frequently found on structures in Old Louisville and Cherokee Triangle. Another vital factor in preserving Crescent Hill's uniqueness is the continued presence of large institutions, which have helped to maintain stability and provide green space. At one time, Crescent Hill was the site of three large orphanages, two of which still remain. Woodfock Hall, built by the Episcopal church about 1870 and located on Crestwood Avenue at the southwest corner of Crabbs Lane and Gardiner Avenue, operated as a home for boys until 1955, the structure was sold in 1961 to the Ursuline Order for use as a dormitory by Ursuline College. The second orphanage to locate in Crescent Hill, where it remains today, was St. Joseph's Catholic Orphan's Home. Founded in 1849 by German Catholics, the home first operated in the old Jefferson Seminary at Eighth and Grayson (Cedar) streets. During the mid-1850s it moved into the large Colonial style home of Colonel Jason Rogers at the corner of Jackson Street and Fehr Avenue near St. Boniface Church. There the institution remained, in quarters later enlarged, until 1885, when it moved to its present location on the north side of Frankfort Avenue at Crescent Avenue on part of the old Fairgrounds land. Architects for the stately, two-story building were Cornelius Curtin, William Redin, and Charles D. Meyer. Finally, in 1927, the Masonic Widows and Orphan's Home of Kentucky moved into its new quarters, located on a 126-acre tract on the north side of Frankfort Avenue between Fenley Avenue and Sprite Road. Organized in 1867, the institution had operated since 1871 in quarters located on the east side of Second Street between Bloom and Avery Streets, south of the central business district. By World War I, the existing facilities had become inadequate. In 1919, the Board of Directors initiated a Million Dollar Committee to raise funds necessary to build a new facility. By 1921, over $900,000 had been subscribed. The following year, the directors commissioned the Louisville architectural firm of Joseph and Joseph to begin drawing plans for the institution's new buildings including a school and auditorium, administration building, laundry and powerhouse, widows' dormitory, infirmary, industrial plant, kitchen and dining room space, and children's dormitories. By late 1923, the Million Dollar Fund had been oversubscribed, and more than half a million dollars had been collected. The cornerstone was laid in October 1925 and the new home was dedicated in October 1927. Crescent Hill also is the locus of important educational institutions. Among these, in addition to the area's numerous public and parochial schools, are Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and the former Ursuline College, now headquarters of several of the order's other educational programs. Organized in 1857, Southern Seminary operated in Greenville, South Carolina for two decades. In 1877, it moved to Louisville, and developed a campus of four buildings at Fifth and Broadway. But during the early twentieth century the noise and bustle which accompanied the movement of the city's main business area toward Broadway had begun to intrude upon the serenity of academic inquiry. By 1910 the trustees had begun to search for a setting more conducive to educational life. But it was not until 1921 that they purchased a 53-acre tract on Lexington Road in Crescent Hill. Ground was broken in 1923 for Norton Hall, the main administrative and academic building. Two years later, construction began on Mullins Hall, a men's dormitory. Finally, in March 1926, the Seminary abandoned its downtown campus and moved into its $2 million Crescent Hill facilities. One of the most distinguished architectural sites in eastern Louis- ville, the Seminary campus was planned and its initial buildings were designed in the Neo-Colonial style by architect Arthur Loomis, in association with the prominent New York firm of James Gamble Rogers. Subsequent additions by the Louisville firm of Nevin, Morgan, and Kolbrook maintained the design concept of Loomis and Rogers. Built during an era in which Neo-Colonial architecture was particularly popular, Southern Seminary takes on added significance because of its critical praise. Architecture historian Rexford Newcomb, for example, found the institution's red brick buildings "particularly pleasing" and suggested that Norton Hall, "with its Adamesque portico and terraced tower, is eminently characteristic" of the Federal style. Ursuline College was established during the late 1930s by the Ursuline Order of Roman Catholic nuns, which already operated its Mother House and Sacred Heart Academy, a preparatory school for girls, on grounds between Stilz Avenue and Cannons Lane east of Southern Seminary. In 1940, the sisters broke ground for Brescia Hall, a science facility, which also housed classrooms and administrative offices. Designed and executed in the Colonial style by Louisville architect Walter Wagner, Brescia Hall was the first of several academic dormitory buildings which would be erected upon the order's sylvan campus. Ursuline College continued to operate at its Lexington Road campus until 1968 when it merged with Bellarmine College and eventually moved all its operations to the latter institution's campus on Norris Place. The Ursuline Order continues to operate its other educational and religious activities at the Lexington Road campus. For all its variety, Crescent Hill has a sense of cohesion. It has the kind of uniform mix of housing styles and the central artery, such as Frankfort Avenue, which together give Crescent Hill a sense of unity in the midst of variety and vitality. APPENDIX B TABLE 1 NEIGHBORHOOD SALES ESTIMATE FOR CRESCENT HILL: 1980

Sales Floor Per Sq. Ft. Establish- Area Annual Sales Use SLUC Floor Area ments Sq. Ft. Estimate

Hardware 5251 $45.54 3 6,500 $296,010 Grocery 5410 158.38 4 11,100 1,758,018 Supermarket 5411 278.81 2 15,500 4,321,555 Fruits and Vegetables 5430 100.00 (est.) 1 900 90,000 Dairy Products 5450 116.30 2 1,800 209,340 Bakery 5461 100.00 (est.) 1 1,000 100,000 Family Clothing 5650 101.18 1 2,000 202,360 Music Stores 5732 100.00 (est.) 3 4,050 405,000 Restaurant 5810 93.78 1 1,600 150,048 Fast Food Restaurant 5811 125.51 2 1,950 244,744 Bars and Pubs 5820 98.60 2 2,700 266,220 Drug Stores 5910 135.95 1 1,500 203,925 Liquor Stores 5920 170.38 2 3,000 511,140 Antique Stores 5931 100.00 (est.) 4 5,150 515,000 Gifts and Novelties 5995 39.98 2 2,600 103,948

All Uses . ---- $152.85 31 61,350 $9,377,308 (weighted avg. )

Note: 'Eiased on factored values from 1978 Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers to allow for inflation. APPENDIX B TABLE 2 NEIGHBORHOOD SALES ESTIMATE FOR RETAIL USES LOCATED IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO CRESCENT HILL Sales Floor Per Sq. Ft. Establish- Area Annual Sales Use SLUC Floor Area ments Sq. Ft. Estimate

Grocery Supermarket Dairy products Apparel Restaurant Fast Food Restaurant Bars and Pubs Liquor Stores Gifts and Novelties

---- $186.25 15 29,350 $5,466,432 (weighted avg.

Note: Based on factored values from 1978 Dollars and Cents of Shopping to allow for inflation. APPENDIX C

Definitions of Structural Classifications Residential Structures a. SOUND Structure is sound in all respects -- in an excellent state of repair. b. SOUND Structure is sound -- in need of only limited minor STRU- repairs, has no defects or only slight defects which EEmR are mmlly corrected during the course of regular REPAIR mintenmce (such as lack of paint, slight damage to porch or steps; -11 cracks in wall or chkmey; broken gutters or dmnsputs; slight wear on floor or door sills). c. SOUND Structure is detsriorating -- in need of extensive STRU- minor repairs, more repairs than muld be provided WOR during the course of regular maintenance; one or more REPAIR defects and/or deficiencies or an intenrediate nature hich my or may not be economically feasible to undertake as a whole (such as shaky or unsafe prch steps; holes, open cracks or missing material over a mall area of the walls or roof; rotting window sills or frarres) , but not mtaining an apparent nwS3er of defects and/or deficiencies to justify clearance on just the condition of the structure. A general or major rehabilitation job is required for these sts. d. DETERIORATED Structure is deteriorated -- it contains a cdination STRUCrURE of defects and/or deficiencies in structural and non- MAJOR structural elenwts of total significance and to an REPAIR extent pssibly requiring clearance. Such defects and deficiencies being to the extent that the structure will not met criteria for the C. "Sound Structure Major Repair" classification. These units are questionable for rehabilitation because of the cost factor. e. DILAPIDATED Structure is dilapidated -- has at least two mjor BEYOM) structural defects (such as holes, open cracks or miss- REPAIR ing materials over a large area of walls, roof or other parts of the structure; sagging floor, walls or rwf; darrage by storin or fire) to the degree requiring clearance. Non-Residential Structures a. STANDARD Structure is apparently sound in all respects; sL-- ture is in need of only limited minor repairs which are nomlly made during the course of regular maintenance, such as painting, clean-up of yard and/or structure, repair of screens, or repair of gutters and dawnpouts. b. DEPPZCIATING Structure is detertioratingand in need of extensive minor repairs -- mre repairs than could be provided during the course of regular mintenance, such as shak!~ or unsafe porch steps, repair or siding, minor roof or chirmey repair, or repair or rermval of accessory buildings -- but not containing a sufficient nmkr of defects and/or deficiencies to justify clearance solely because of the structure's condition. c. SUBSTANDAFC Structure is dilapidated and contains a ccnnbination of structural defects and/or deficiencies requiring major repairs (such as sagging floors, walls, or roof, open cracks or missing materials over a large area, major problems with rwf or ~orch)to a degree requiring clearance. I

~ ~

, ,

,- I ,,-. ,

CRESCENT HILL NEIGHBORHOOD :-'- ,.,.*,,. . * ...... C."... 1980' Census' Tracts ~ ; P cs- ,.-...... - ,-.-, 2! Figure 1-5 APPENDIX D TABLE 1 POPULATION CHANCE 1960 - 1980 CRESCENT HILL

Census Tract 76.01' 77 pt. 78 pt. 79. 86 pt. 87pt. Crescent Hill Louisville

(Year)

1960 1936 2010 1754 2346 477 81 7 9340 390,639

1970 2064 1687 1602 2288 422 755 8838 361,472

1980 1955 1600 1312 1946 370 1089 8272 298,451

Change 1960-1980 19 (-410) (-442) (-400) (-107) 272 (-1068) (-92,188)

0 Change 1960-1980 1.00 (-20.40) (-25.20) (-17.10) (-22.42) 33.32 (-11.40) (-23.60)

Notes: (pt.) = partial tract

'76.01 was created out of Census Tract 76 in 1980.

Sources: Census of Population and Housing 1960; 1970; 1980. (Block and Tract Statistics). ADDENDUM APPENDIX D TABLE 2 POPULATION CHANGE 1960 - 1980 CRESCENT HILL (AMENDED AREA ONLY)

Census Tract 76.03' pt. 77 pt. Total (Year)

~p - Change 1960-1980 2 0

% Change 1960-1980 16.3%

Notes: (pt) = partial tract

'76.03 was created out of Census Tract 76 in 1980.

Sources: Census of Population and Housing 1960: 1970; 1980 (Block and Tract Statistics) APPENDIX D TABLE 3 DWELLING UNIT CHANCE 1960 - 1980 CRESCENT HILL

Census Tract 76.01' 77 pt. 78 pt. 79. 86 pt. 87 pt. Crescent Hill Louisville

(Year)

1960 710 61 1 504 908 158 282 3173 128,333

1970 858 642 496 985 160 161 3302 129.671

1980 1040 650 480 960 161 211 3502 126.143

Change 1960-1980 330 39 (-24) 52 3 (-71) 329 (-2190)

0 Change 1960-1980 46.50 6.40 (-4.80) 5.70 1.90 (-25.20) 10.40 (-1.70)

Notes: (pt) = partial tract

'76.01 was created out of Census Tract 76 in 1980

Sources: Census of Population and Housing 1960; 1970; 1980 (Block and Tract Statistics) ADDENDUM APPENDIX D TABLE 4 DWELLING UNIT CHANGE 1960 - 1980 CRESCENT HILL (AMENDED AREA ONLY)

Census Tract 76.03~ pt. 77 pt. Total (Year) 1960 1970 1980 5 8 132 190

Change 1960-1980 15 10 2 5

% Change 1960-1980 34.9% 8.2% 15.2%

Notes: (pt) = partial tract

'76.03 was created out of Census Tract 76 in 198Ch.

Sources: Census of Population and Housing 1960; 1970; 1980 (Block and Tract Statistics) APPENDIX TABLE 5 1970-1980 POPULATION AND HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS: CRESCENT HILL

-8 "Age 65 Year Round One Unit Owner Renter Census Tract -A Total Black Under age 18 or over he1l i ng at Address Occupied Occupied Vacant Year Population # 0 C 0 I0 Units C % # 0 # 0 C0

77 (part) 1970 1,687 26 1.5 492 29.2 209 12.4 642 * 297 46.3 271 42.3 342 53.4 28 4.4 1980 1,600 39 2.4 414 25.9 154 9.6 650 389 59.8 266 40.9 344 52.9 40 6.2

78 (part) 1970 1,602 0 0.0 337 21.0 415 25.9 496 468 94.4 412 83.1 74 14.9 10 2.0 1980 1,312 2 0.2 202 15.4 420 32.0 480 454 94.6 403 84.0 69 14.4 8 1.7

86 (part) 1970 422 0 0.0 106 25.1 52 12.3 160 160 100.0 147 91.9 8 5.0 5 3.1 1980 370 8 2.2 80 21.6 81 21.9 161 161 100.0 147 91.3 9 5.6 5 3.1

87 (part) 1970 775 8 1 .O 67 8.6 92 11.9 161 66 41.0 39 24.2 108 67.1 14 8.7 1980 1,089 18 1.7 48 4.4 32 2.9 211 123 58.3 39 18.5 165 78.2 7 3.3

Total Crescent Hill 1970 8,838 43 0.5 2,058 23.3 1,371 15.5 3,302 * 1.854 56.2 1,723 52.2 1,442 43.7 136 4.1 1980 8,272 113 1.4 1,373 16.6 1,455 17.6 3,502 2,248 64.2 1,715 49.0 1,645 47.0 142 4.1

*Includes 1 unit not detailed as to mer/renter or one unit at address - excluded in calculating 0. "Tract level percents in 1970 applied to population in the neighborhood. *WT 76 in 1970 (part)

Source: 1970 and 1980 Census of Population and Housing, Neighborhood Statistics, PHC 80-2-227 and Block Statistics. ADDENDUM

APPENDIX JI- TABLE 1970-1980 POPULATION AND HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS: CRESCENT HILL (Amended Area Only)

-0 **Age 65 Year Round One Unit Owner Renter Census Tract -A Total Black Under age 18 or over Dwelling at address Occupied Occupied Vacant Year Population # 8 # 8 # 'a Units # 'a # 8 # 8 # '%

76.03 (part) 1970 1980

77 (part) 1970 1980

Total 1970 1980

Source: 1970 and 1980 Census of Population and Housing, PHC 80-2-227 and Block Statistics. APPENDIX TABLE 7. TRENDS IN HOUSEHOLD SIZE 1970 - 1980

Census Tract 76.01 77 pt. 78 pt. 79 pt. 86 pt. Year 1970 1980 1970 1980 1970 1980 1970 1980 1970 1980 # 0 # 0 #0 # 0 #0 # 0 # 0 # 0 # 0 # 0

Persons in Unit

Appendix E EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME, 1960 - 1980, CRESCENT HILL NEIGHBORHOOD (total tract data)

Cerusus Tract 79 86 Indicator Year = 1960 1970 1980 1960 1970 1980 1960

Percent Unemployed 3.8 4.6 3.3 0.0 3.9 0.0 1.4 M F M F M F M F M F M F M F Labor Force Participation Rate 85.3 39.7 80.4 47.8 76.4 58.8 77.8 25.2 78.2 42.6 71.3 37.8 95.8 32.6

Labor Force Participation Rate 58.6 61.6 65.9 50.3 61.1 54.2 60.7

% White Collar Workers 71.1 65.4 69.8 86.7 95.0 91.8 73.9

8 Blue Collar Workers 22.3 22.2 18.6 9.4 4.1 5.4 18.1

Service Workers 6.4 12.4 11.6 3.8 0.9 2.8 7.9

Mean Family Income $9,996 $21 ,128 $26,416 $37,964

Median Fami 1y l ncome $6,121 $8,733 $18,484 $13.311 $17,705 $35,253 $7,430

Mean Unrelated Indiv. Inc. $3,872 $9,237 $4,895 $6,576

Median Unrelated Indiv. Inc. $3,333 $8,024

Median lncome of All Families and Unrelated $5,276 $6,867 $13,471 Individuals

Per Capita Income $3,212 $7,957

Persons Age 25 and over B High School Graduates 61.4 56.4 77.6

Persons Age 25 and over 0 School Dropouts 38.6 43.6 22.4 10.5

Median School Years Completed 12.4 12.2 N.A. 16.2 N.A. N.A. Appendix E EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME, 1960 - 1980, CRESCENT HILL NEIGHBORHOOD (total tract data)

Census Tract Crescent Hill (Population Weighted Total) Louisville Indicator Year = 1960 1970 1980 1960 1970 1980

Percent Unemployed

Labor Force Participation Rate

B White Collar Workers

% Blue Collar Workers

B Service Workers

Mean Family Income

Median Fami ly I ncome

Mean Unrelated Indiv. Inc.

Median Unrelated Indiv. Inc.

Median Income of All Families and Unrelated Individuals

Per Capita income

Persons Age 25 and over B High School Graduates

Persons Age 25 and over % School Dropouts 38.3 33.7 19.5 67.9 59.1 44.5

Median School Years Comoleted 12.5 13.0 N.A. 9.3 10.7 N.A.

'~aluesfrom NSA date in parenthesis show considerable variation from Tract data averaged by population weight but was unavallabJe for previous years. This is due to the differsnces in incorne levels between the population living in the Crescent HI11 portlon of '-10. ,Cen:ur: 'r racts compar~dt@ thoaa outs (c 1 , . .It : I , ~~ ~. i ~ - .Ji I--I : : 1 ~ ~ 1 , , APPENDIX F TABLE 1 CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSING UNITS, CRESCENT HILL: 1970-1980 Crescent Hill Total 5 76.01 77 pt. 78 pt. 79 86 pt. 87 pt. Total Loui svi 11e Year 1970 1980 1970 1980 1970 1980 1970 1980 1970 1980 1970 1980 1970 1980 1970 1980

Total Year-Round Dwelling Units 858 1,040 64 2 650 496 480 985 960 160 161 161 211

Occupied Dwelling Units 844 995 61 3 610 486 472 920 923 155 156 147 204

Owner Occupied Dwelling Units 3 95 406 271 266 412 403 459 454 147 147 39 39

Renter Occupied Dwelling Units 449 589 342 344 74 69 461 469 8 9 108 165

Vacant Units 14 45 28 40 10 8 65 37 5 5 14 7 136 142 6,988 8,903 1 For Sale 1 8 1 2 0 1 7 2 1 2 4 1 14 16 653 1,041 1 For Rent 11 30 19 17 5 3 49 17 2 0 6 3 92 80 4,422 4,025 1 Boarded Up N.A. 0 N.A. 0 N.A. 0 N.A. 1 N.A. 0 N.A. 0 N.A. 1 N.A. 660

Single Family 2 Units at Address 393 6~3~297 389 468 454 470 498 160 161 66 123

Multi-Family Units 465 41 7 344 261 28 26 515 462 0 0 95 88

1 Median Value Owner Occupied $14,200 $40,700 $22,600 $58,000 $16,100 $40,700 913,400 $37,900 $32,800 $81,100 $37,100 $85,200

1 Median Value 4 Renter Occupied $129 $226 $77 $162 $87 $159 $80 ' $174 $63 $7~~$94 $162

Sources: 1970 and 1980 Census of Population and Housing (Block and Tract Statistics) and Neighborhood Statistics.

'~ractlevel data or weighted from tract level data based on actual units in the area for Tracts for 1980 and 1970. 'one unit at address in 1980 or 1970 - not necessarily a single family home. 3. Unit weighted average - not actual median. 4 Tract median. 'CT 76.01 was part of CT 76 in 1970. 6. Thls figure distorts the character of the new construction as many of the new units shown in 76.01 were apartments/condominiurns. N.A. - Not Available. - 2 76.01 77 pt. 78 pt. 79 86 pt. 87 pt. Crescent Hill Louisville Census Tract # "a # B # % # % # B # % # "a # "a

Year Structure Built 1979 to March 1980 0 0.0 3 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 1.8 6 0.2

1939 or earlier 407 39.7 262 40.3 2 66 55.5 602 63.6 76 47.5 50 23.9 1,929 55.6

Source: 1980 Census of Population and Housing PHC80-2-227 and Neighborhood Statistics.

1 Data is based on Census Tract level' percentage data applied to portion of Dwelling Units within the area of Crescent Hill. This is sample count data and for the total tracts (76.01 and 79) does not equal 100% counts of year round dwelling units.

Crescent Hill total is from Neighborhood Statistics and not a total of values at the Census Tract level. Substantial differences exist in the total of tract data from the overall Crescent Hill within the categories but the total units are equal though 5.1% higher than the "total" counts for Crescent Hill. APPENDIX CRIME RATES PER 100,000 PERSONS:

CRESCENT HILL CENSUS TRACTS (LOUISVILLE PORTION)

Vehicle Major Census Tract Homicides Rapes Robberies Assaults Burglaries Larcenies Theft Arson Crime Total

76.01 0 25 128 38 1,419 2,570 26

77 pt 0 0 72 0 1,182 2.114 0

78 pt 0 0 149 50 1,688 2,234 0

79 0 0 51 103 1,901 2,878 0

86 0 0 1293 287 4,310 5,316 0

87 0 48 24 48 1,367 1,799 0

Louisville 17.8 52.6 579.0 269.7 2,365.2 3,447.8 76.4

Source: Louisville Police Department and 1980 Census of Population and Housing APPENDIX H Issues and Problems A problem identification session was held on April 25, 1985, with the Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Crescent Hill Community Council. The staff of the Louisville and Jefferson County Planning ~ohissionconducted the session. The results of the meeting are as follows : Transportation issues/problems: - Truck traffic cuts through residential areas. - Thru traffic has increased on Kennedy since Birchwood became a one-way street. - Crosshill, Upland, Top Hill have inadequate width (just one lane) . - Bad sight distance at many intersections: Fenley and North Crestmoor, Lexington and Top Hill, Reservoir and Brownsboro. - Traffic in general is a problem on Frankfort Avenue. Heavy rush hour traffic on Frankfort Avenue experiences delays, backups. Bottlenecks create more air pollution. - Stilz/Hillcrest/Frankfort intersection improvements have been delayed. - Forest Court is hard to maneuver for emergency vehicles. - There are dedicated streets and alleys that were never opened or used as right-of-way. - Some streets are too narrow for 2 lanes of parking and 2 lanes of thru traffic. - Traffic is increased through study area when work is being done on 1-71 and 1-64. - Cars parked the wrong way on streets were given tickets and residents oppose such enforcement action. - Need to promote bigger and better public or private transportation systems. Railroad issues/problems: - Galt, Blackburn, Fenley, Claremont and Crestmoor Avenues are isolated by trains with no other outlet. - The extent and location of railroad right-of-way along Frank- fort Avenue should be established. Alley issues/problems: - An accurate inventory of built alleys and existing rights-of- way is needed. - Need lighting. - Trash is scattered and clean-up is needed. - Encroachment on right-of-way has occurred in some alleys. - Some alleys are unpaved. - Trash service is displaced to front yard pickup in areas without alleys. - Loss of off-street parking in areas without alleys. Parking issues/problems: - Lack of off-street parking for residential and commercial areas. - Houses are being demolished for off-street parking instead of using the north side of railroad tracks on Frankfort. - Parking and hot rods from Sacred Heart Academy create problems on McCready, Eastover, and Crestwood. - Inadequate off-street parking and narrow streets that limit on-street parking require front yard parking in some areas (e.g. Reservoir Park). Pedestrian issues/problems: - No pedestrian connection to Cherokee Park and Seneca Park. Land Use issues/problems: Future use of Emmet Field Elementary and Barrett Middle Schools if they are closed by the Board of Education. Need more commercial use that is compatible with neighborhood. (i.e., nice restaurant) . Peterson-Dumesnil House needs to be fully used as a community resource, including recreation use of the surrounding open space. Billboards on Frankfort Avenue do not contribute to the neighborhood's appearance. Need for design review through Community Council. Need to reinforce special character of the neighborhood: lighting, signage, planting, commercial uses, and, screen parking especially at entry points along Frankfort Avenue. Need to develop opportunities for beautification which will strengthen residential character in the neighborhood. Rear of commercial structures are unsightly. Crescent Hill neighborhood signs are no longer in existence. Zoning issues/problems: - Zoning doesn't reflect existing land use in some- areas. - Zoning of large institutional sites that could be developed needs to be studied. - Need downzoning to reflect current land uses; existing zoning would allow expansion of commercial use. APPENDIX 2 TAQLE -1 TOTAL PERSONAL CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURE CRESENT HILL (1980)

1980 1980 Per Capita Expenditure Population Income Per Capita Total

76.01 1955 $9,734 $7,602 $14,861,943

77 (part) 1600 6,174 4,821 7,714,392

78 (part) 1312 7,897 6,167 8,091,176

86 (part) 370 12,746 9,954 3,682,861

87 (part) 1,089 7,459 5,825 6,343,469

Crescent Hill Total

Notes: Personal consumption expenditure is estimated at 78.094% of Per Capita income based on 1972-1979 averages from Economic Indicators (April 1980).

Source: Census of Population and Housing PHC 80-2-227. APPEND IX _I_ TABLE 2 ESTIMATED PERSONAL CONSlMPTlON EXPEND1 TLRES FOR CRESCENT HILL (1980) BY RETAIL CLASSIFICATION

Durable Goods Non-Durable Goods Services Tota 1 Personal Motor Furnlture & Census Consumpti on Vehicles Household Tract Expenditure Total and Parts Equipment Total Food Clothing Gasoline Total

77. (part) 7,714,392

78 (part) 8,091,176

86 (part) 3,682,861

87 (part) 6,343.469

Crescent Hill Total $53.932.119

Notes: Total categories under durable and non-durable goods include expenditures not listed separately. Totals may not equal exact sum of columns due to rounding.

Sources: Planning Comnission. Economic Indicators (April. 1980). APPENDIX 3 TO: File

FROM : Dave Ripple

DATE : June 18, 1985 RE: Evaluation of Problem Intersections

Because of the offset nature of the Hillcrest and Stilz intersections with Frankfort, there are very heavy left-turn movements on Frankfort for traffic with a northbound-southbound travel desire. Over a two-year period, sixteen accidents accurred between these two intersections. This intersection area is further complicated by a railway crossing at Forest Court whereby people avoid the traffic signal at Hillcrest and Frankfort by using the Forest Court crossing and Norbourne Way. The Forest Court crossing of the Seaboard Railroad has been the location of a series of automobile-train accidents (use specific data from Traffic Engineering), and the crossing has not been closed due to the Forest Court pillars that block fire truck access to Forest Court via Norbourne Way. The realignment of Stilz and Hillcrest has been proposed in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and the community's Comprehensive Plan since the 1960's. The 1974 Tornado Study suggested that Hillcrest be realigned north of Frankfort to tie into Stilz; however, the alignment suggested to avoid homes was substandard for a "minor arterial' road (i.e., the curves were too tight -- 100' radii when 500' radii should be used). The capacity analysis indicates that the off-set intersection operates at LOS C in the morning peak hour and LOS B in the evening peak hour. However, the storate space of 275' for left turn vehicles from westbound Frankfort to southbound Stilz is of minimum length to handle the heavy left-turn morning volumes, and, thereby operates at capacity. Concerns were also raised about the failure to continue traffic flow on Frankfort when trains are moving, the traffic island at Stilz that complicates left-turns onto Stilz yet is not high enough to protect pedestrians, parking on the west side of Stilz that conflicts with the left-turns onto Stilz, and the transition from two lanes to one lane on Frankfort at Stilz due to parking on both sides of Frankfort west of Stilz. An estimate was made of the cost to realign Stilz and Hillcrest across the northwest corner of the Louisville Water Company. As long as the alignment remains north of the LG&E substation no utilities would be involved in the realignment, based on a meeting with the Louisville Water Company. The cost of this alignment would be $500,000 assuming 2 lowering of Frankfort that would get into major utility relocation and excluding the cost of reimbursing the Louisvile Water Company for land. A realignment of Stilz and Hillcrest north of Frankfort was not considered due to the high residential acquisition and relocation costs to construct an acceptable alignment. In the short term, the following improvements are suggested: 1) Marking Hillcrest for two southbound lanes (one left-turn and one right-turn) by removing parking from the east side of Hillcrest where properties of access via an alley or by widening Hillcrest on the west side for 200' within existing right-of-way at a cost of around $17,000. This would provide a 10% improvement in the capacity of the intersection. 2) Adjusting the traffic signals to allow traffic to continue on Frankfort despite trains and to shift the westbound "Frankfort" lag-green" for left-turns to a "lead-green" enabling left turns to clear between changes in signal phases at Hillcrest. 3) Reconstruction of the traffic island on Stilz to facilitate left-turns from Frankfort (i.e., removing the island entirely or moving the "gore' further south) plus removing parking for 100' on the west side of Stilz to facilitate left-turns from Frankfort. 4) Removal of parking on the north side of Frankfort from Stilz to Crescent to facilitate transition from two to one lane on Frankfort at Stilz. Of this 300', a TARC stop east of Crescent and no parking west of Stilz already eliminate all but about 100'. The removal of existing parking on the south side of Frankfort west of Stilz is NOT recommended due to the adverse impact on business. 5) Prohibition of parking on the north side of Frankfort from Hillcrest to Fenley is needed for proper intersection operation at Hillcrest and Stilz. 6) Closure of the Forest Court RR crossing and relocation of the east Forest Court pillar so that fire trucks may enter Forest Court via Norbourne Way. Relocation of one pillar and minor widening of Norbourne Way from the alley to Forest Court may be accomplished for less than $10,000. Complete reconstruction of Norbourne Way from Hillcrest to Forest Court with curbs and sidewalks would cost around $50,000 plus some right-of-way may be needed for the widening of Norbourne Way with sidewalks (say $10,000). Alternative access to Forest Court via the alleys to the north is not recommended because the narrow alleys would not accommodate a fire truck and landscaping has been placed in the right-of-way at the north end of Forest Court. Long term, realignment of Hillcrest and Stilz might be considered in the future. However, the present level of service of B and C at the intersection does not justify the $500,000 reconstruction cost, and little traffic growth is anticipated in this area for several decades.

Although traffic volumes indicate that this intersection operates at a LOS F as a result of heavy southbound left-turns on Hillcrest in the evening, a field inspection during the evening peak hour revealed no backlog of any approach. Nevertheless, only major reconstruction could resolve the possible '------nrnhlem.- A widenina of Hillcrest from Riedlins to 200' south of Brownsboro within eksting right-of-wax would cost $360,000 excluding utility relocation costs. This would enable a dual left-turn lane for southbound Hillcrest raising the LOS from F (1516 vph) to D (1308 vph). In view of the high reconstruction cost, marginal improvement in capacity, and questionable volumes, only monitoring of traffic volumes is suggested, NO major reconstruction is suggested. C. High accident Intersections:

1) Lexington at Cannons Lane (20 accidents in 1983 and 1984) -- suggest "lead-green" for heavy westbound left-turn on Lexington and "stop ahead" signs be added to Lexington and Cannons Lane (north of Lexington) Residents indicate that the northbound left-turn from Cannons backsup traffic to Willis. However, traffic counts reveal no problem. Further, as Cannons Lane cannot be widened for a separate left-turn without additional right-of-way or adverse public reaction (in view of prior opposition to widening), only adjustments can be made to the traffic signal phasing such as a separate phase for northbound and southbound Cannons; unfortunately this would drop the level of service from A to C for all approaches. 2) Lexington at Stilz/Garden (17 accidents in 1983 and 1984) - - suggest "lead-green" for heavy eastbound left-turn on Lexington and installing more prominent "stop ahead" signs on all intersecting streets. 3) Brownsboro at Hite (14 accidents on 1983 and 1984) - - poor site distance on the northeast corner poses a hazard for southbound Hite. Suggest removal of aging tree and carrying down the embankment to improve site distance. 4) Grinstead at Stilz (9 accidents in 1983 and 1984) - - place more prominent "stop ahead" signs on Gr~nstead west of Stilz, and a "heavy cross traffic intersection" sign or "caution dangerous intersection ahead" on Stilz south of Grinstead.

D) - Other Problems 1) ~orth'Galt -- this street has only one outlet to Frankfort that may be blocked by trains in an emergency.

O Connection of north Galt to Hite would involve up to $200,000 for right-of-way and construction due to 30' + elevation difference in 200'. This possible between two homes that are separated more than 50'; however, an atrocious looking embankment or structure would adversely affect these homes. e Connection of Galt Avenue westward along the Seaboard RR would require acquisition of one structure with

lot and part- of another lot to tie into Lexington way.. D Connection of Galt Avenue eastward along the Seaboard RR to Hite would involve taking one residence and a portion of a large lot. The cost would range from $50,000 to $120,000 dependingon the design of the 600' connector e., 18' pavement ot 24' pavement with curb and sidewalk) plus right-of-way. 2) Lexington Road at Alta Vista -- difficult to get out of Alta Vista in morning and evening peak hours. -- 11/23/83 traffic counts indicate that traffic is too low on Alta Vista to justify a traffic signal based on "minimum volume" or "interruption of continuous flow" signal warrants. -- Nearly 120 more dwelling units would have to be built to justify the signal. 3) Birchwood north of Grinstead -- 12' pavement one-way south. Adequate right-of-way exists to widen this 100' stretch of Birchwood, but complaints of more cut through traffic and adverse affect on property owner on the northeast corner who has incorporated the right-of-way into his well landscaped yard make any improvement that would receive neighborhood consensus unlikely. APPENDIX K

MEMO

TO: File 12

FROM: Dave Ripple

DATE : June 11, 1985

RE: Lexington at Alta Vista - Check for Signal Warrant 11/23/83 Traffic Data

Warrant 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume **600 vph total of both approaches of major street for eight hours at 150 vph on higher-volume minor street approach for same eight hours** Alto Vista exceeds 150 vph for only two hours during the day. Warrant 1 not fulfilled. Warrant 2 - Interruption of Continuous Flow **900 vph total of both approaches of major street and 75 vph on higher-volume minor street approach for same eight hours** Warrant meet for five of eight hours. Sixth hour is very close, but low morning peak hour volumes on Alta Vista from 7 to 9 A.M. make attainment of necessary eight hours difficult. At 0.6 trip per dwelling during morning peak hour, 120 dwelling units must be built in the area to justify signal. --.------A

APPENDIX L

MEMO TO: File 12 FROM: Dave Ripple

DATE : June 3, 1985 RE: Frankfort/Hillcrest/Stilz Realignment Cost Estimate

a) Pavement Removal - Stilz 350' x $55 per ft. = $19,250 - Hillcrest 200' x $50 per ft. = $10,000 b) Water Company retaining wall removal 350' x 10' av. height x 3' = 390 cu. yd. x $lO/cu. yd. = $3,900 - C) Excavation south of Frankfort ((300' x 10' av.) x 200') 4 = 11,111 cu. yd. x $15/cu. yd. = $166,665

d) New pavement with 6' sidewalk and curbs - Stilz 300' x $244/ft. (4 lane) - Hillcrest 200' x $219/ft. (3 lane) - add left turn lanes to Frankfort 500' x $75/ft.

e) New retaining wall (300' x 2OV/x2') % = 222 cu. yd. x 300 cu. yd. = 66,666 $420,981

f) Norbourne Way relocation - remove street and RR crossing 200' x 2' x 20' = 296 cu. vd.- x $10 cu. vd. =$ 2.960 - new street with sidewalk & curbs 250' x $190/ft.

Right-of-way for Norbourne

**IF NO MAJOR UTILITY RELOCATION** APPENDIX M

TYPICAL INTERSECTION

. . TRIM YOUR HEDGE BUSHES AND TREES FOR SAFETY'S SAKE

Source: City of Louisville Department of Public Works APPENDIX N Documentation of review of the Draft Crescent Hill Plan

TO : Members of the Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Committee Crescent Hill Community Council

DATE : June 25, 1985

RE : Itinerary for Distribution of Rough Draft of Comprehensive Plan to the Crescent Hill Community

In order to remove any doubt or confusion arising from last nights meeting, I feel that it is necessary to establish in writing the plan for distributing the rough draft of the Comprehensive Plan. We will take the below listed action in the following order.

1. Receive the rough draft in its entirety from the Louisville E Jefferson County Planning Commission.

2. Convene our committee for a meeting(s) as is required to review this draft report.

3. Make any changes or modifications necessary after reviewing the draft report.

4. Take that mugh draft to the Crescent Hill Community Council for approval to distribute this information to the neighborhood.

5. Hold a series of neighborhood meetings at which time we will discuss all issues including potential zoning changes with those smaller neighborhood groups.

6. Reconvene our committee to discuss comments made by the neighborhood meetings and make appropriate changes in the rough draft.

7. Hold a general public hearing on the refined mugh draft document.

8. Take the refined rough draft document to the Crescent Hill Community Council for passage.

9. If the final rough draft is approved by the Crescent Hill Community Council give that document back to the Planning Commission for issuance and implementation.

We, as the primary initiator of this document, have a responsibility to our community to make sure that everyone is informed about the document as well as having a proper opportunity to make comments on the same. I would encourage all members of the committee to make an Page 2 June 25, 1985 extra ordinary effort to take this all important document through its final stages. I have no preconception about the response by the community on this report. I look forward to your continued participation in this process.

Vfry truly yours,

Alvin J. Cox A.I.A. LOUISVILLEa JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNINGCOMMISSION 900 FISCAL COURT BUILDING. LOUISVILLE. KENTUCKY 40202 502-581-6230 a--

July 8, 1985'

Mr. Ben Post Neighborhood Development Cabinet 727 West Main Street ~ouisville,Kentucky 40202 Dear Ben: I -' Two memos and a copy of the draft Crescent Hill Neighborhood Plan are attached for your review. The draft plan was mailed last Friday. As discussed in the June 25th memo, this draft will be li reviewed by the neighborhood committee and taken to the Community Council prior to any public presentation of the report. Accord- ingly, we will not begin the review by public agencies until after the Community Council signs off on the draft; agency review should I occur during step 5 of the June 25th memo. I" I also wanted to let you know that two elements of the draft plan I that were specifically requested by the Planning Committee may create some controversy. These items are discussed in the July 2nd memo. It is my understanding that Paul Bergmann discussed both of I these issues with Sharon. I hope that the neighborhood's revrew process will resolve these questions; if not, I will discuss them with you. I Please contact me if I can explain any of this further. I Sincerely, I

Dave Hulefeld -- CC: Rob Kanzler Paul Bergmann DH/pe TO: Members of the Crescent Hill Comprehensive Plan C

FROM: Alvin J. Cox

DATE: August 28. 1985

RE: Neighborhood Meetings

Dear Committee Members,

Dates have been set for our presentation of the Draft of the Comprehensive Plan for early September. We plan to meet with the Reservoir Park - Eastover end of Crescent Hill on Monday, September 9th. This area is the area indicated by Sheets C E D of the maps in the draft of the Comprphensive Plan. We will meet with the sres represented by Sheet B or Hillcrest Avenue to Hite Avenue including the Baptist Seminary on September 10th. We will meet with that area of Crescent Hill represented in map A or Hite Avenue to Ewing on September 11th. All meetings will begin at 7:30 P.M. and they will be held at the Peterson-Dumesnil House. I ask that you attend all meetings. It is very important that this Comprehensive Plan is conveyed by the full Committee.

On Thursday, September 12, 1985, our Committee will convene at 8:00 P.M. at the Peterson-Dumesnil House in order to review those comments that were made in the three previous neighborhood meetings. I realize that this is a lot of "meeting" to occur in one week; however, I think that in order to comprehensively present this plan and to review those comments as little time as possible should elapse. I ask for your indulgence that week and I look forward to seeing you beginning on Monday night, September 9th.. at the Peterson-Dumesnil House. PUDUCHQM - kpp*dhl(in.*d*w-- bods4 h"-. (~YPz- I(l).GT&d** c.4Ha c- Cad"akld.Cli- The Courier-Journal and The Louisville Times ---.Lp M.79 PW w R ,"CDlpOrated ?mnorrn...dl b*- r-STATE OF KESTUZKY County of Jeiferscn /SS Affidavit of Publication

THE COURIER-JOURNAL AND THE LOUISVILLE TIMES COMPANY, publisher of THE JOURNAL and THE LOUISVILLE TIMES, papers of general circulation, printed and publish ville, Kentucky, do solemnly swear that from my own personal knowledge, and reference to said publications, the advertisement ofuaal 105 : Public Notice

THE LOUISVILLE TIMES as follows:

9/17 90

w..:. . . -- -wAm

.- i -=-?!.--- -- I 'YYLClr 127,,-. 4b,.,&gczlE- (Sgn:t~e$rson making proof.) l~ M1 .. Subscribed and sworn to before me thisxdayof Sevtember , A.D. 19 2' MY con~missionexpires June 22 , 19-

- otary Public) i 04 I -1~

Cad.sM. The Courier-Journal and The Louisville Times =1:7&% i

STATE OF KENTUCKY County of Jefferson }ss Affidavit of Publication n. bm* 4.- 1, Candam withorm THE COURIER-JOURNAL AND THE LOUISVILLE TIMES COMPANY, publisher of THE JOURNAL.. .-~ and THE LOUISVILLE TIMES..- papers - of -general circulation, printed and publish ville, Kentucky, do solemnly swear that from my own personal knowledge, and reference to said publications, the advertisement of 5e-1 105 : ?'lbli~80tioe was

THE COURIER-JOURNAL as follows: THE LOUISVILLE TIMES as follows: Date Lines Date hen Date 97% Fb""

- 114 -.- OM.~Hill Con~ (Lgnature. . of person malung proof M IL a Subscribed and sworn to befpre me this l9 day of S"pteabr , A.D. 19 - / .-

My commission expires June 21 86, 19- b72w~ ,-//&&J otary Public) D-s ! - Crescent Hill Newsletter

PALL 198 5

The Crescent Hill Community Council will hold its annual meeting on September 26 at 7:45 p.m. at the Peterson-Dumesnil House. This meeting will hear the report of the Nominating Committee and elect the officers for the coming year. In addition we will review the final draft of the Neighborhood Plan. (See Neiqhborhood Plan Nears Com~letion) Please mark the special meeting time on your calendar and plan to attend.

In 1981, the Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Crescent Hill Community Council began an extensive effort to create a growth plan ior the crescent Hill area. In the spring of 1985, our Alderman, Melissa Meredith, funded a professional comprehensive plan for Crescent Hill to be prepared by the Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission. Our committee is very pleased to announce that the Planning Commission has completed the draft of this plan and it is ready for presentation to you, the property owners of Crescent Hill. Our Comittee and Planning Commission staff will present this draft to the Community in a series of three meetings which are set for September 9, 10 and 11 at the Peterson- Dumesnil House.

Each night at 7:30 p.m. a apecific area of the Crescent Hill cornunity will be presented. The first meeting will be on September 9, and generally include the Reservoir Park and Eastover areas of the community from the Masonic Home west to Hillcrest/Stilz Avenues. September 10 the area from Hillcrest/Stilz Avenues west to Kite Avenue including the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary will be covered. The final night, September 11, will include areas from Kite to Ewing Avenue and Cochran Hill north to Brownsboro Road. The Neighborhood Plan, similar to those adopted in other areas of the city, addresses such items as transportation, land use and potential zoning changes and attempts to establish long term goals as a guide to future growth. As this will rffect the character of Crescent Hill for years to come, we urge you to attend these meetings. Following your input from this series of meetings, the plan will be modified as necessary and then reviewed by the Crescent Hill Community Council for approval at the speciallyscheduledannualmeeting onSeptember 26. After that action it will be submitted through the normal statutory process for adoption by the Board of Aldermen. A copy of the plan will be on display at the Homecoming for your inspection. It will also be available at the Crescent Hill Branch Library. Please come, listen and share you input. This is neighborhood; let's make this plan! - - 1

I LOUISVILLE8 JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNINGCOMMISSION 900 FISCAL COURT BUILDING. LOUISVILLE. KENTUCKY 40202 502-581-8230 - l

FROM: David M. Hulefeld I I - I I I DATE : September 12, 1985 -

Comments received at Neighborhood Public Meetings September 9, 10 and 11, 1985 I I 1. Add a three-way stop sign, at Ingle and McCready. I 2. Seminary parking lot at Godfrey and Meadowlark not supported. 3. Improve signage on Birchwood; "Begin One Wayn not clear. I 4. Need traffic signal at Brownsboro and Hite or Birchwood. I 5. Maintain street trees, trim limbs that block vision at intersections. I 6. R-9 zoning desired for property at 109 North Galt.

7. Recommend R-E zoning for McCoy property to show the neighborhood's goals for the site. (Traffic concerns as well --1 as steep slope) I - I 1 8. Easements used to exsist linking North Galt with Peterson - Avenue. - 9. What can be done to improve the alley between Peterson and - Ewing south of Frankfort. - 10. Show construction of sidewalk on Lexington Road in front of Baptist Seminary. (Sheet B) - 11. Install three-way stop sign at Birchwood and Field intersection. 12. Construction of sidewalk on Birchwood north of Grinstead is , supported; interest in changing one-way traffic on Birchwood. .- '! . ,

.~.. i , , . . \~> 13. Show zoning change on vacant lot on Ewing (McCoy property). 14. Check steep slope and land use designation on Falkenberg property. 1 900 FISCAL COURT BUILDING. LOUISVILLE. KENTUCKY 40202 502-581-8230 1/ - -

August 16, 1985

I- I A copy of the draft Crescent Hill Neighborhood Plan is attached for your review. The Plan covers that portion of the city bounded by Ewing Avenue, Brownsboro Road, the city limits and Lexington Road. I- The Plan was prepared by the Planning Commission staff in cooperation with the Planning Committee of the Crescent Hill Community Council at the request of the Board of Aldermen. It was developed r to meet the requirements of Ordinance 22, Series 1980, the Neighbor- hood Plan Ordinance. The Ordinance requires review of draft plans by agencies involved with the plans, prior to submittal to the Board I of Aldermen for adoption. As an agency affected by the plan or recommended to assist in implementing it, your review of the draft plan is essential. Other agencies reviewing the Plan are listed on the back of this letter. Please indicate by letter whether your agency approves the plan, has no comment, or reasons for disapproval of the draft plan, as well as I suggestions and comments on how to improve the plan. Receipt of your comments by September 6, 1985 is necessary, so that revisions can be discussed with the Planning Committee prior to their adoption '1 of the plan. The plan will be presented at public meetings in the neighborhood the week of September 9th. Non-receipt of comments by September 6th, will be considered as a no comment response by your agency . 1 If you have any questions, please call me at 581-6230. 7 Yours truly,

David M. Hulefeld Project Manager I Enclosure JI cc: Alderman Meredith Alvin Cox Ben Post Paul Bergmann Agencies and Groups Reviewing the Crescent Hill Neighborhood Plan

Seaboard System Railroad L. C. Love, Superintendent Economic Development Cabinet Charles H. Buddeke, Executive ~irector cc: Joseph W. Wathen (copy) Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Wade G. Campbell (copy) Louisville Community Design Center John Trawick, Director Metro Parks Department Robert Kirchd~rfer,Director cc: Anita Solodkin (copy) Neighborhood Development Cabinet Sharon L. Wilbert, Executive Director (copy) cc: Robert J. Kanzler (copy) Betsy Hagan (copy) Ben Post (copy) David Flores, Director, Housing Department cc: Sally Yankee (copy) Ann Hassett, Director, Landmarks Commission (copy) Public Works Department J. Michael French, Director cc: John Beyke, City Engineer Jim Pasikowski (copy) Sushi1 Gupta (copy) Transit Authority of River City Dwight Maddox, Director of Planning (copy)

(Alderman Meredith informed about review process.) TRANSIT AUTHORITY OF RNER CITY, 1WO WEST BROADWAY, LOUINIUE. KY40203 PLANNING DEPAFTMENT 502-587-1642

Board of Dlrecmo: Aobert~mion,chalman. James G Apple Vce Cha~rrnan Patrlc a W Ballard Willlam J Conlev R James Grlffn Rodnev J Henderson Allce K Lancasrer Haw Lewman Sr General Manager: ~iud5. Amen. Senlor Advlsor Housron P. Ishmael

August 23, 1985

Mr. pa ul Bergmann Executive Director/Secretary Louisville & Jefferson County Planning Commission 900 Fiscal Court Building Louisville KY 40202

Dear Mr. Bergmann:

We have completed our review of the Crescent Hill Neighborhood Plan and would like to request the following revisions be made.

On page 66, the plan proposes shelters be placed on Frankfort at Ewing, Frankfort at St. Joseph Home, and Lexington at Sacred Heart. At one time, a shelter was located on Frankfort at Ewing but was removed due to vandalism. It is unlikely we would consider placing another shelter here. Regarding Frankfort Avenue at St. Jospeh #Home, TARC has already investigated placing a shelter on the north side of Frankfort Avenue but was unable to do so because of the terrain.

On page 70, the plan states, "The Crescent Hill Community Council can express its opposition to..." the busway corridor. We believe, in the interest of objectivity, "opposition" this should be re-worded to "viewpoint".

Should you have any questions to the above, please call at 587-2687.

Dwight Maddox Director of Planning L

I LOUISVILLE(L JEFFERSON COUNTY I ( PLANNINGCOMMISSION I 900 FISCAL COURT BUILDING, LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY 40202.3396 502-581.8230

I October 17, 1985

Dwight Maddox Director of Planning Transit Authority of River City 1000 W. Broadway Louisville, Kentucky 40203 Dear Dwight: Thank you for your review of the draft Crescent Hill Plan, and your letter dated August 23, 1985. The discussion of transit shelters on page 66 has been revised based on your comments. The problems with placing transit shelters at Frankfort and Ewing, and in front of St. Joseph Orphanage are mentioned in the text. Amenities other than TARC shelters are being recommended for these locations. The reference to "oppositionn to the proposed busway corridor has been retained in the plan; it is an accurate term for community sentiment at this time, as encountered during the planning process. As a neighborhood plan, this report reflects the goals and desires of the area's residents. Again, thanks for your cooperation in reviewing this plan. Sincerely,

cc: Paul Bergmann File Department - of Public Works 217 city H~II,801 wwt Jsfferwn .Loulrvllla. KY 40202 soz/sa7-3121 -- R. M~chaelFrench - Director HARVEY I. SLOANE MAYOR

September 3, 1985

Mr. David M. Hulefeld Project Manager Louisville & Jefferson County Planning Commission 900 Fiscal Court Building Louisville, KY 40202

Dear Dave : I have reviewed the draft Crescent Hill Neighborhood Plan and have the following comments regarding the transportation section. I will address them in order as they appear in the Recommended Transportation Plan starting on page 66.

Excess Railroad Right-of-way

I agree with the first three (3) sections regarding the use of the right-of- way but do not feel that enough information is now available to remove the busway corridor from the Metropolitan Transportation Plan.

Frankfort/Stilz/Hillcrest Intersection

On the Frankfort Avenue system all the signals are complete except for the one at Frankfort & Ewing which we anticipate will be completed by the middle of September. At that time the coordinated system will be put into operation. I will study the recommendations for removing on-street parking but care must be taken in the block between Stilz and Crescent Avenue to insure that the businesses on the south side have some parking available at all times during the day. A possible solution would be to restrict the north side 24 hours a day from Stilz half way to Crescent and then install the No Stopping-4 to 6 on the south side. This would insure the businesses of at least a small on- street parking area at all times. We agree with the closure of Forest Court and are presently in the process of preparing preliminary plans and cost estimates for the closure.

Traffic Safety Issues

Before any action can be taken at the high accident intersections. I will need to review the accident diagrams prepared by the Planning Commission staff. However, my initial feelings are that at Lexington Road and Stilz the left turn volumes (only 5 to 7%) are too low to justify the installation of a left turn phase. I drive Lexington Road quite often and feel the left

An Equal Opportunity Employer - Mr. David X. Hulefeld September 3, 1985 Page 2

turns are adequately handled by the present phasing and that left turn phases will only increase delay. However, the accident information may convince me otherwise.

Many of the issues discussed in this report do not give specific information concerning alley problems, narrow streets and parking problems. We will be glad to work with the Transportation Committee and other interested groups to review and make recommendations at any location within the Crescent Hill area. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

.Tau$ C. ~dsikowski. P.E. ~ssistantCity Engineer

pc: R. Michael French, P.E. Brian J. Bobo, P.E. Sushi1 K. Gupta LOUISVILLE8 JEFFERSON COUNTY - PLANNINGCOMMISSION 900 FISCAL COURT BUILDING, LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY 40202-3396 502-581-6230

October 21, 1985 Ir James C. Pasikowski, P.E. Assistant City Engineer Department of Public Works 217 City Hall I Louisville, Kentucky 40202 1 Dear Jim: -1.

Thank you for your detailed comments on the draft Crescent Hill Plan, dated September 3rd. I can offer the following responses: Excess Railroad Right-of-way: Opposition to the busway corridor has been retained in the Plan. Transportation guideline 4 is an I accurate reflection of neighborhood desires based on their understandins of the busway concept. The neighborhood plan is an appropriate Gehicle to express the community Is opinion on this topic. I I Frankfort/Stilz/Hillcrest Intersection: The date for completing

1 sianal- - coordination has been revised to September 1985, on pages 56 -1 ani 61. The recommendation for removing parking on the south side of Frankfort Avenue (guideline 6) is conditioned on provision of alternate parking areas for businesses located in the area. I believe that your concerns were satisfied in our telephone I conversation. - ! Traffic Safety Issues: Your concerns about Lexington Road's intersection wlth Stilz Avenue and Cannons Lane were discussed with - the planner responsible for the Transportation section of the plan. His opinion is that lead green phases for left turns would facilitate movement through the intersections, but the benefits probably do not justify the cost of making these improvements at this time. The text has been revised to indicate that the lead green option should be considered at these intersections if high accident levels occur and they are shown to relate to left turn - movements (pages 49, 62 and 67). Page 2

Again, thanks for your comments on the draft plan. I know that the Planning Committee appreciates your efforts on improving Forest Court and your offer of assistance on further transportation planning. Sincerely,.

David M. ~ulefeid

CC: Paul Bergmann File

DMH/ jcb 1

Metro Parks o_...y.._. -II 1297 Trev~l~anWay - Post Offlce Box 37280 Loulsv~lle.Kentucky 40233 -. I 502 459-0440 -

September 3, 1985

L I

David M. Hulefeld @@c~/,P - Project Manager

Louisville G Jefferson County + L> Planning Commission / SEppod @& - - 900 Fiscal Court Building LOU'~vIUE Louisville, Kentucky 40202 ''0 ''0 JEF;~~~ Re: Crescent Hill Neighborhood Plan -N'YQ Q&&p,,,

Dear Dave:

My staff has reviewed the draft Crescent Hill Neighborhood Plan. We have found the plan to be comprehensive and accurate.

We would like to comment, however, on a conclusion stated on page 17 of the plan: "One area was identified as being outside the 4 mile service radius of any park. This area is roughly bounded by Brownsboro Road on the north, Hite Avenue on the east, Frankfort Avenue on the south and Ewing Avenue on the west. Recreational service in the area might, however, be provided by other than publicly owned and maintained facilities which are discussed in a separate section below."

The western edge of this area is about 4 mile from Bingham Park, a four acre park at Coral and Brownsboro Road. Although Bingham Park is considered part of the Clifton neighborhood, residents who live in the western section of the forementioned I area can easily access Bingham Park.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Crescent Hill I Neighborhood Plan. Yours truly, I 0~ Bob Kirchdorfer

Your F~rstResort ------

- LOUISVILLEa JEFFERSON COUNTY I I PLANNINGCOMMISSION I 9M) FISCAL COURT BUILDING, LOUISVILLE. KENTUCKY 40202-3396 502-581-6230 a- - October 21, 1985 I Mr. Bob Kirchdorfer, Director Metro Parks Department I P.O. Box 37280 Louisville, Kentucky 40233 Dear Mr. Kirchdorfer: Thank you for your September 3, 1985 letter concerning the draft Crescent Hill Neighborhood Plan. Page 17 has been revised to include reference to Bingham Park. The portion of Crescent Hill west of Hite Avenue is partially within a 4 mile radius of that facility. The Plan will reflect that Bingham Park should meet some of the neighborhood's recreation needs. Your cooperation in the plan review process is appreciated. Sincerely, --CL@d-ykDave M. Hulefel

cc: Paul Bergmann File MEMORANDUM - CITY OF LOUIS\IILLE

TO: Dave Hulefeld, Director of Advanced Planning .- Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission

FROM: Sharon Wilbert, Executive Director Neighborhood Development Cabinet

DATE : September 6, 1985 -

SUBJECT: Crescent Hill Neighborhood Plan

Please find enclosed a copy of comments submitted to me by Ben - Post. If you have any comments or questions, please feel free to contact me. - -

" - S9 Sharon Wilbert

Enclosure MEMORANDUM - CITY OF LOCISVILLE

- TO: Sharon Wilbert, Executive Director SEP 0 9 1983 Neighborhood Development Cabinet MJUISVILlE AND JEFf EI(SL!N GUUNr earnulasew FROM: Ben Post, Planner Neighborhood Development Cabinet

DATE: September 6, 1985

I SUBJECT: Draft of the Crescent Hill Neighborhood Plan

I have read the Crescent Hill Neighborhood Plan and I feel that it is generally a very good document. I do have several comments:

1. Why does the Plan cover part of the Brownsboro-Zorn Neighborhood Statistical Area? The reason behind this should perhaps be noted.

2. The Plan should include, either at the front or before figure 1-1, one smaller scale street map of the entire study area so that individuals can get an overview of the geographic relationships.

3. It seems inappropriate to me that the two paragraphs associated with the sub-heading This Report, on page 1, are part of the Existing Land Use narrative. They should be

, included prior to the text, perhaps as part of the introduction.

4. The fourth line under Part f on page 15 needs a period mark (after residents) .

5. On page 16, the second word of the third paragraph contains a typographical error.

6. On page 24, the ninth sentence of the middle paragraph states: "The Committee's proposal that development proposals undergo neighborhood review as a necessary step in the permitting process would address this issue as well." This statement is not clear to me; it seems to contradict preceeding statements that suggest that regulatory approaches should not be taken at this time. What is meant by this statement?

7. I really like the idea of a design assistance team, which is suggested on page 32.

8. On page 36, a reference is made to the 25% tax credit available to businesses involved in the improvement of a National Register District commercial structure. Is the future of this program in question? A note pertaining to this matter should perhaps be made.

9. There seems to be some redundancy and overlapping with regard to the Land Use Priority rankings.

10. On page 44, it is stated that Brownsboro Road is the most heavily traveled road with 20,000 cars per day. Therefore, the first paragraph on page 45 should say: "Two additional study area roadways ..." as opposed to "Two study area roadways ..." It is also noted here that Frankfort Avenue has more cars per day than Lexington Road. When looking at figure 11-3, the figures given for the different sites on each of these roads, when averaged, make it appear as though Lexington Road has more cars than Frankfort Avenue. Why does this inconsistency appear? I'm not saying the figures are incorrect, but perhaps the methodology used to determine the figures for each road on page 45 should be explained, so that it doesn't appear to conflict with figure 11-3.

11. If Lexington Road does have more cars than Frankfort Avenue, why would it not also be classified as a Major Arterial? Is it because it lacks direct access to Interstate 64? An explanation should be noted for clarity to the general public.

12. On page 73, it states: "City ordinance prohibits vegetation other than tree trunks at a height greater than two feet or less than six feet...". This statement is confusing and needs to be clarified. Does the "greater than two feet or less than six feet" refer to the vegetation or trunk? Is it perhaps meant to say "between two and six feet"?

13. On page 73, a reference is made to the cost of railroad crossing bars. Does the figure refer to gates or flashing lights, or just bars? This also needs to be clarified. 14. Are the low interest loans for sidewalk repairs, mentioned L on page 74, available to residential properties only? This should be noted for clarity. 7

L 15. On page 75, it is stated that litter problems will be inspected by the Environmental Inspection Division of the r Building Inspection Department. I believe it is supposed to i be the Housing Department.

Ben Post l LOUISVILLEa JEFFERSON COUNTY - PLANNINGCOMMISSION -- 900 FISCAL COURT BUILDING, LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY 40202-3396 502-581.6230 D--

MEMORANDUM TO: Sharon Wilbert, Executive Director Ben Post, Planner Neighborhood Development Cabinet FROM: Dave ~ulefelw$ DATE : October 21, 1985 RE: Crescent Hill Neighborhood Plan

Ben Post's September 6th memo provided numerous comments and suggestions concerning the draft Crescent Hill Plan. The Plan has r been revised and improved based on these comments. Comments are addressed individually below; numbers correspond to those found in the September 6th memo. I 1. The plan covers the area represented by the Crescent Hill Community Council. The Neighborhood Statistical Area map does I not reflect the affiliation of residents north of Brownsboro Road with the Community Council. The Brownsboro-Zorn - I Association was kept informed of the planning process and content of the Crescent Hill Plan. I1 2. A map showing street names will be added to the front of the report. I 3. "Existing Land Use" as a heading was a typing error; the final - version reads "Existing Conditions". The discussion of "This 1 Reportn has been shifted, to precede the historical background section. I 7 I 4. Typographical error has been corrected. I I 5. Typographical error has been corrected. -1 6. Material has been added to the paragraph in question, describing the Planning Committee's proposal for neighborhood participation - in the development review process. This should correct the ambiguity of this part of the text. I 7. Thank you. 8. A sentence has been added to the discussion of the 25% tax credit noting that the credit may be eliminated in the future. - Page 2

9. The redundancy in the priorities section results from the Planning Committee assigning priority to individual elements of guideline 18, which deals with strengthening the visual identity of Crescent Hill. The beginning portion of the guideline was repeated for purposes of clarity. 10. Editorial error has been corrected in the first paragraph of page 45. The number of vehicles on Frankfort Avenue and Lexington Road have been restated as ranges, to eliminate inconsistency with Figure 11-3. 11. Frankfort Avenue is designated a major arterial because it is the continuation of Shelbyville Road and it is part of the federal highway system (U.S. 60). Lexington Road does not meet these criteria. In addition, there is a goal for spacing major arterials evenly through the transportation system. This discussion has not been included in the plan because it is considered rather technical for a neighborhood plan, and not germane to development of the plan's recommendations. 12. The language on page 73 has been changed as'suggested. 13. The $50,000 figure reflects the cost of the standard safety device -- crossing bars, flashing lights and bells. A more complete description of the safety mechanism has been added to page 73. 14. The discussion of the sidewalk repair program (page 74) has been revised to explicitly state that the program is for residential property. 15. The text reference to the Building Inspection Department has been changed to the Housing Department (page 75). Thank you for the time and effort devoted to reviewing the draft plan. The Crescent Hill Plan is a more accurate, understandable document because of the comments received. Please contact me if you I wish to discuss any of the above responses. I cc: Paul Bergmann File