Prospect council gives preliminary approval to downtown master plan; annexation deferred

Prospect — The Prospect City Council on March 16 voted unanimously to grant preliminary approval to a proposed downtown master plan for the city’s large undeveloped “head property,” a step the mayor said was requested by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet so the cabinet can study possible traffic impacts, including whether a fourth roundabout at the development entrance is needed.

Mayor Evans said the city contracted planners Jeff Speck and Mike Watkins to study the property and that roughly 40% of the site would remain as green space under the preliminary plan. The resolution adopted by roll call authorized the mayor and city staff to take steps to implement the plan and to share the plan with the Transportation Cabinet for impact study; the council approved the resolution by a 6–0 vote (Mrs. Leonard, Mr. Clark, Mr. Holmes, Mayor Evans, Dr. Gibson and Dr. Ferman voting yes).

The council did not move forward with annexation of the property at this meeting. The mayor said the city remains a few petition signatures short of the number the city seeks, so the first reading of an annexation ordinance was deferred to a later meeting.

The vote followed more than an hour of public comment and presentations. Neighbors and civic volunteers expressed mixed views: some urged the city to preserve open space and avoid displacing residents, others, including members of the city’s Architectural Review Committee and nearby business leaders, said annexation would let Prospect influence design, protect local character and capture tax revenue for city services.

Developer Wes Johnson, who said he represents Westcot Development, told the council the property is likely to be developed whether Prospect annexes it or not and said annexation would give Prospect more control over design. Johnson said discussions with adjacent residents are ongoing and denied any intent to use eminent domain: “I have no intention of taking anybody’s house by eminent domain,” he said, and invited neighbors to meet with his team to review plans.

Several residents asked how annexation and petition thresholds work. The mayor explained the city is seeking petition signatures equal to 75% of the number of people who voted in the last presidential election within the annexation area and described the petition and Metro review steps that follow filing. Questions about whether people who no longer live in the area remain on Exhibit B were answered by city staff: the list is keyed to voters who voted in the last presidential election, and positions on the list are adjusted when records show someone moved or died.

Bob Jacob, chairman of Prospect’s Architectural Review Committee, said the committee was formed because redevelopment along US 42 was inevitable and that design review was intended to keep new development from matching the low‑quality strip patterns seen elsewhere. “We want to make sure that whatever is developed is going to be compatible with the feel that we have of this city,” Jacob said.

Opponents and concerned neighbors raised environmental and quality‑of‑life concerns: loss of wildlife habitat and trees, traffic and pedestrian safety near Highway 42, and the prospect of denser housing near existing one‑family streets. Kathy Sour, an arts committee member, urged inclusion of a community center and amphitheater with adequate parking to reduce hazardous crossings on US 42.

The mayor and several council members emphasized continued public outreach and one‑on‑one meetings with residents. The mayor also reiterated that annexation decisions and any use of eminent domain would be made by the council at a later date and not unilaterally.

The resolution’s adoption is the next procedural step in a larger process: if annexation petitions reach the required threshold and the city proceeds, the city would still need to complete the ordinance process and coordinate with Metro and state agencies. The mayor said the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet requested the council’s preliminary action so it can analyze impacts on three planned roundabouts on US 42 and whether a fourth would be warranted at the proposed development entrance.

The council did not take a final annexation vote and deferred the annexation ordinance to a future meeting; residents were invited to schedule follow‑up meetings with city staff and the developer to review plans and raise concerns.