The Courier-Journal - 4 February 1998
Several residents made one more attempt to persuade the St. Matthews City Council not to rezone property behind Shelbyville Road Plaza last week, but the council overwhelmingly approved the new zoning.
Council member Martha Schade was the dissenter in the 7-1 vote.
“I spent a lot of time thinking about this,” Schade said afterward. “I was really on the fence. But I felt there were too many ‘ifs.’ I feel there’s a (drainage) problem over there, and … the only thing I heard was that it’s not going to get any worse. I think the city should really look into trying to help solve the problem.”
The developers needed St. Matthews’ approval for rezoning from R-1 and R-4 residential to C-2 commercial to proceed with plans to expand the plaza along Bowling Boulevard.
“If you have any doubts at all, say no,” Michael Price of Clover Lane said at a meeting.
But council members argued that the 18.7 acres behind the plaza is no longer suitable for residential use and should be rezoned commercial. “Would you buy a lot there?” council member Rick Tonini asked.
Price said the fact that it’s not suitable for residential use doesn’t mean it’s suitable for commercial use, and contended that the land hasn’t been developed residentially because it’s in a flood plain.
Michael Crittenden of Alcott also said it was a conflict of interest for St. Matthews City Engineer Jim Birch to head the engineering firm of Birch, Trautwein & Mims, which is planning the project.
Jim Mims of the firm said Birch has not been directly involved in the plans, and council member Rick Tonini said the drainage plans received an independent review from the Metropolitan Sewer District.
Before moving for approval of the rezoning ordinance, council member Harry Hargadon said he hadn’t heard any evidence that the developers haven’t followed the law.
Tandy Patrick, a lawyer representing the developers, offered an additional binding element. The developers will move a brick buffer wall back 15 feet from their property line to avoid removing trees if they can get an agreement within 60 days from all 17 homeowners along the wall’s route to maintain the additional property.
City Attorney Foster Haunz proposed adding a condition that the developers replant two trees for every one removed, which was approved.
Patrick said the developers set up a meeting at a resident’s home the week before the council meeting, but no one else attended. A couple of other residents said they had not been notified of the meeting.
Patrick said the resident has volunteered to contact the others but said the developers will get in touch with residents and will have a written proposal to present.