Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I'd like to call this the March 2nd, 2026 meeting of the Paduka Planning Commission to order. I would ask that you rise and join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Right. Mr. Summers, would you call the role, please? Commissioner Benberry, here. Commissioner Chapman, here. Commissioner Griffin, here. Commissioner Heath here.

Commissioner Kaylor. Commissioner Rhodess here. Chairman Wade here. All right. Our first item of business is the February 12th minutes. Uh, Commissioner Benberry, I believe you have that motion. Yes, sir. I move that the reading of the minutes for February 12th, 2026 be waved and that the minutes of said meeting as prepared by staff be approved as written. Second. Moved and seconded. Any additions, deletions, corrections to said minutes? Hearing none. Mr. Summers, would you call the role, please? Commissioner Benberry, I. Commissioner Chapman, I. Commissioner Griffin, I. Commissioner Heath, I.

Commissioner Rhodess, I. Chairman Wade, I.

All right. Our first item of business is a text amendment. And uh I would turn that over to Mr. Summers to for the staff report. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a text amendment to section 126-3 definitions of the Paduka zoning ordinance. The request is made by NatureMed, who will operate the new medical cannabis dispensary here in Paduca. They have requested that they use the same branded colors and logos so that they match their uh locations in Missouri and Arizona and two other locations in Kentucky, specifically in Erlanger and Carolton. And a picture of the Erlanger um location is in your packet as well. So branded signage is important for any kind of chain. For example, if Walmart wasn't allowed to use their signature asterric or Dutch Brothers the windmill or Hardies the Hat, then it loses that uh identification as you're going down the road be able to pick it out and differentiate from other chains. So even though Nature Med is a small chain, it does have locations and will be their third state. So we can understand and appreciate the text amendment to allow their logo symbol and colors. The specific logo is a lotus flower which is used utilized to symbolize healing and they use green and orange across their locations. The petitioner has submitted the following in support of the proposed text amendment. The Nature Med logo is an essential part of our business identity and functions primarily as wayfinding and brand identification, not cannabis promotion. In a highly regulated industry, clear and rec recognizable signage helps patients and customers safely locate a license compliant business while reducing

confusion confusion with neighboring storefronts. Uh so, Mr. Chairman, the petitioners professional representative is yes, is here tonight to answer any questions that you all may have as well. staff is recommending approval and I'd like to turn it back over to you for the public hearing. Thank you. This being a a change to the ordinance, a recommendation for a change to the ordinance, we'll open a public hearing. And Commissioner Griffith, I believe you have a motion on that.

Yes, sir. I move that this board open the public hearing for case TXT2026-00001 pertaining to section 126-3 definitions of the uh Paduka Xanic zoning ordinance. Is there a second? Second moved and seconded by voice vote. All in favor say I. I.

Any opposed by like sign. All right. We're in public hearing for that. Would ask anyone who has comments about this ordinance uh or excuse me this text amendment to come approach the podium, identify yourself and uh speak to the commission positively or negatively. All right, hearing none. Mr. Griffith, would you read the next or next motion? I move that this board close the public hearing for case TXT 2026 0001 pertaining to section 1263 definitions of the Paduka zoning ordinance.

Is there a second? Second. Moved and seconded. Also by voice vote all in favor of closing the public hearing say I. I. Any opposed by like sign. All right. Now, uh, Commissioner Chapman, I believe you have the motion to approve the ordinance. I, Jim Chapman of the Planning Commission, a forward the following motion. I move that the commissioners adopt the commission adopt the resolution recommending the board of commissioners that case TXT 2026-1 pertaining to the text amendment of 126-3 definitions of Paduka zoning ordinance be adopted. Second.

Moved and seconded. Commissioners, do you have any comments or questions of staff? Any comments or questions at all? All right. Hearing none, Mr. Summers, will you call the role, please? Commissioner Chapman, I. Commissioner Griffin, I. Commissioner Heath, I. Commissioner Rhodess, I. Commissioner Benberry, I. Chairman Wade,

I All right. Our Next item for business is a final subdivision plat consideration for property known as 1501 Broadway. And before we get started on that, I want to uh provide some comments to the commission and to the public. I'd like to offer a few summary comments as we proceed to PLT 2026-00001. This next uh agenda item is in consideration of the final plat of 1501 Broadway or as it is known the Catjon site. At our first public hearing back in February when the preliminary plat was approved, several people made comments primarily regarding the aesthetics of the proposed future development and regards to the orientation of the homes in the proposed future development. We heard those comments and considered them at our last meeting. While it is not our standard to open a second public hearing during a final plat approval, several people are here this evening and they would like to speak and this planning commission would like to hear your comments. However, I must caution you that the issue before this planning commission this evening is a final plat approval which we will then forward on to the U city commission. This is not a zone change or a zoning matter. It's not a map amendment. It's not a request to approve a variance or a waiver. It is not a request for conditional use permit. And the plat being presented tonight does appear to meet both the state law and local ordinance requirements and therefore does not appear to be showing any uh items of non-compliance. Otherwise, he would not be found to be in satisfactory form if presented to us for consideration. And with that said, this commission is willing. If this commission is willing, excuse me, I would entertain a motion to open a

second public hearing so we may hear comments. Is there a motion to such? So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. By Voice vote, all in favor of opening a public hearing say I. I. Any opposed? By like sign. Therefore, we are in public hearing. Uh any um comments about this? I would ask that you come to the podium, identify yourself, name and address, and limit yourself to three minutes or less. Uh, Chairman Wade, would you like for me to give a brief summary of the changes between the preliminary and final?

That would be an excellent idea. Sorry for the interruption.

Sorry about that. Uh, thank you, chairman. Um I did want to point out that between the preliminary and the final plat there has been a few things uh established on the plat. Um the official name is forest landing subdivision. The private drives on the east and west are reflected as forest landing east and forest landing west. Accordingly, the central ingress and egress easement has been widened from 30 feet to 40 ft and two 15 ft public utility and drainage easements have been added along Broadway and Jefferson Street and all those are on the final plat. And again, this is a favorable uh recommendation from staff for the final plat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So now turn it back over to you for the the public hearing. This is a little out of our norm of squeezing this in there. So, please forgive us if we're a little rough around the edges. So, sir, if you'd like to come to the podium, identify yourself, name, and address and speak to this matter.

Visited with you a while ago uh over another zoning issue. This I'm not talking about zoning though. I hear what you just said. My name is Bill Kascarelli at COS C A R E L Li and I live at 220 Fountain Avenue here in Paduka. Um I'm part of the the Jefferson Street Historic Association and several of us have just sort of found out what's Oh, I got to turn my watch on. How what's been happening and the movement to this final approval and that's why we come to you uh to visit tonight. Um we think there are issues that still deserve discussion and we're going to ask you to table the motion uh tonight uh until we do the right a couple of the right things that we think need to be done in the process and it's a process that's been supported by the Kentucky state. Um the pictures we've seen for example houses like this don't match the floor plan. This is a shotgun house, way narrower than this. Um, you've got u a conglomeration of houses. And one of the fundamental issues about the u walkable cities which the city brought in a number the gentleman a number uh months ago, houses should face the street. That's a that's a testimony to like, hey, how are things going? So, what what we have coming in to the Cater John area and it seems to be fairly quickly is a subdivision. We don't have a neighborhood. They're going to take a a place of area and they're going to pop the subdivision in and that's going to be totally out of character of the historic uh nature of Jefferson. When I looked at various things here, um for example, Kentucky says you need to have a certificate of appropriation appropriateness application. Uh this is Louisville's uh certificate. It asks for

what district are we in, what's the project name, who's the contact people, and uh photos with plans, site plan, floor plan, elevations, landscaping, etc. We haven't seen that anywhere, I guess. So, I guess Carol Gold has planning director has arranged for us to meet with the uh developer tomorrow evening at 5. And so we're planning to go visit with them and continue the discussion. We think that it took a while to get the Ker John building knocked down, boarded up, hauled away. Um what's another two and a half months at this stage to make sure we we've got an integrated process with an integrated community. Jefferson is the necklace for Paduca. Those streets, those houses, you come in, that's the first thing that hits you. So, we want to try to protect that as well and we believe we're doing so following the certificate of appropriateness process. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Hi. Um, my name is Sue Ararp and I live in the 2300 block of Jefferson Street and I just wanted to tell you a little bit about the Jefferson Street Association. Um, it was started in the 1960s as a result of someone wanting to build a hamburger stand at the corner of 16th and Jefferson. Um, Eleanor Sanders, who lived in that block, an elderly woman, had seen the destruction of Broadway and Kucky's beautiful old homes over the years and just just to build businesses. They tore down the old houses and for commercial use, she was not going to have her street ruined. So she started the the Jefferson Street Area Association and we have fought hard over the years to keep the street residential and finally we got the designation R1 with demolition control because there have been people on the block that have just torn down their houses and without any and we had an instance one time where an eye doctor on Broadway wanted to buy the two houses um right by the statue right there at the boulevard and he wanted to build a parking lot. So, we did not want a parking lot on our street right in that area. So, we have really worked hard to um keep the demolition control on our um as our zoning. Um if the subdivision developer collects an HOA fee um which they usually do to help pay the upkeep of the common spaces like his fire pit that he wants to put in the middle. Um, wouldn't that make that a business? So, it it is zoned for residential only and he would have a business there with his

houses. While Jefferson Street is not designated H1 or H2, it is on the National Register of Historic Places and it was so filed with the Department of Interior by Richard Holland. I have a copy of the application here. It was approved in July of 1982. Um, it specifically mentions the Katar John property. Not only was the building historic which was torn down by the city, but the property was located on the land where General Nathan Bedford Forest rallied his troops before raiding Paduca and Fort Anderson on Good Friday in 1864. And I understand now why he named it Forest Landing because that's pretty clever. Anyway, the property might come, I would think, under the Kentucky Antiquities Act, and they would require an archaeological survey. Um, because no tellings what is under the ground there, there may be cannonballs, there may be um, you know, bullets, whatever. Um, another question is, if the property is on the National Register, does it come under Paduca's Historic and Architectural Review Review Board, HARK? Um if if it does in their own reg regulations on y'all's website uh the city's website it says uh it states that homes in historic areas should face the street and fit in with the neighboring area. If the city insists on the subdivision in the middle of a city block, we think the homes on Jefferson side at least should face the street and fit in with the neighborhood. We think this should be tabled or denied tonight so that we can have further discussions with the developer tomorrow night and until some other more

aesthetically acceptable proposal can be made. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else? Good morning. I'm My name is Jack Bur. I live at 319 Fountain Avenue and uh while I'm not a uh born resident of Paduka, I've been here for a long time and uh love the city and uh I guess I'm here from a concerned taxpayer. uh issue uh as well as a resident. Uh it looks like the city owns the land according to the PVA and uh has made a considerable investment in that property. And I I guess uh from a taxpayer uh perspective, I'm wondering uh how the city's going to recoup their expenditure. Is the property going to be sold to the developer? Is uh uh outright sale or other than uh long-term tax revenue? And then uh because and as Sue mentioned u that property's been there for a long time. Who's going to be responsible for any uh sub um surface issues that may develop? Is it going to be the uh the city responsible for that? Is the developer responsible for that? The homeowner?

It seems like the uh you know there was a lot more green space uh when the Katar John building was there and I had an office uh in the Kat John many years ago so I'm pretty familiar with the property in the area but it it looks like that the land use intensity seems to be greater uh under this proposal than it was when the Kar John building was in place. And certainly uh with it being gone now, is there a list of code variances that are going to be provided to the developer for this project? Is the connecting road between Jefferson and uh Broadway, is that going to be a public public road? Uh or is that a private road gated ungated? I just from my personal perspective I don't think that as written the prop the proposal uh meets the the rest of the area. it is the historic nature of the that community and u what's proposed just doesn't seem to match and I I'm certainly not in favor of the proposal as written and look forward to meeting with the developer tomorrow but thank you very much thank you.

Uh I'm Terry Bur, Jack's wife, and we live at 319 Fountain Avenue. So we are right on the circle and uh we lived there in from 92 to96 and then we came back in 98 and we've been here that long and I don't want to move again. So we were former military and he was there at the Kat John building. So a lot of action went on to Katon and at that time for 5 years we lived at 1643 Jefferson Street. So we were on Jefferson also went to the Jefferson Street Association meetings things like that. Um, luckily I I was never and nothing had come up where we needed to get an attorney or anything, but that's what our fees go to. So, um, this just seemed like there just wasn't enough information. We've watched that building just disintegrate and deteriorate for 20 years with the previous owners before the city got it. I mean, what's it could have been a lot of different things. Um, we're we don't mind the houses, but they need to face the street. Uh that's the first thing that you know it just needs to go with the historical reference. When you look at the historical document that Sue has from the society it has things that need to other need to keep to it for new construction or you would lose your designation. I don't think Capaduka wants to lose the designation. We are on all the you know lots of little small town big town tourist things and brings in a lot of people a lot of tourism and a lot of revenue. So, I think that needs to stay the same and that way uh possibly making just make an adjustment to the plan. Also, the subdivision uh I went down Elmdale Road and going from Old Mayfield Road just a few blocks up on the right is a swale of used to be woods and a whole development there. Some of the homes look very much like the homes on the uh plot that we looked

at. Now, that's fine. But, um, the other I just heard the name. I didn't know it was Forest Landing. You have Forest Hills. That's a nice medium medium income looking neighborhood. Looks great. Couple um um duplexes and then homes. Some were bigger, some were smaller. We only got pictures of two homes to even look at and a plat of one uh interior design. So, why didn't the developer give all three or four pictures of the outside of the homes plus the layout of the houses? And if that's all that you saw to make your approvals, that's pretty sparse. So, the um um there's a lot of, you know, we're in a nice we live in the middle of everything. Cultural neighborhood here, another culture here, another culture here in four different areas around the circle. We love it. that we grew up like that. We've got all kinds of cultures in our family. We have 13 grandkids and around the country and and our children see everybody the same. Now, if you go and name something else for a general that was a Confederate, that's really upsetting. And I didn't realize if that's what Forest Hills was named for, that's not right either. But we don't need to add something new that has that in it. I will I just there's no need to bring up anything like that or have that again. There's been enough controversy over racial things. Things are settling out and you just need to um keep that in mind. And who who chose that name? The developer. Does the developer get to choose the name? Why wouldn't it be Jefferson? Jefferson Estates. Jefferson Sub. I mean um I don't know something with the word Jefferson in it. It's right in the middle. You have from 2nd street first street to 28th 32nd on

down. I mean 1415's right in the middle. So make it something a little more cityified or Jefferson Jeffersonian so that we can do that. So I recommend that we table the motion and table this even though it's final. Add something to make it extended until all these things are looked into. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

I'm Richard Taylor. I live at 1501 Jefferson at the corner of Herahan and Jefferson, the gray brick house there. And um this this is right across the street from from my house. Um we are not jumping up and down or yelling tonight, but we are upset. Okay? So, you need to understand we're upset about this whole thing. Um, first of all, the house that is planned across from me, the developer, Steve Mills, tells me that there's going to be a house, right? He's ready to buy built right away. And it's going to be right across from me. And what I'm going to be looking at is the side of the house. And most people build privacy fences. I guarantee you that the people along Jefferson and Broadway especially are going to build privacy fences. Otherwise, everybody driving by is going to see their backyard and what they're doing in their backyard. There's no privacy. So, they're going to build privacy fence. So, I'm going to look at a privacy fence. Okay? And the other people along beside me are going to look at privacy fence. So, that's one thing to consider. Um, I proposed several changes to the developer and Carol Got gave it to him and he really didn't change anything along along the line that I mentioned. And so I wanted to propose a little bit to you and I want to engage you. That's why I ga sent you this. Uh, of course I didn't have a color printer with enough ink so I didn't print it in color. But you have there the plaque and so you can see uh where Jefferson is at the top, where Broadway is and this uh shotgun house here is 33 feet wide. Uh the plat the uh what y'all gave us last time 33 feet wide. Uh the lot is 50 feet wide and with six feet on each side that only gives you 38 feet. So therefore, you cannot build a wide house like these houses here. You cannot build those in

these 50 foot lots, okay? Because they're much wider than 38 feet. Okay? So, you just need to realize that all the all the houses inside are going to be exactly like this house. Okay? So, you need to realize that. The other thing is if you'll uh look at the second sheet, this is the plat. And uh I have put uh you can read here but I've written there the widths of those uh uh lots. If you look at Jefferson the width of those two lots is 73 ft. Okay. If you look at Broadway the width of those two lots are 73 feet. So those lots can have the wider house built on it. Okay. And so therefore, this wider house that he gave us uh something a rendering of, they can be built on those four lots. Okay? And so that's what I think he plans. Uh he hasn't told you that. He hasn't given given you a copy of what the what this rendering looks like. Uh but he certainly uh is planning to do it that way. Now, my proposal, if you look at the last page, according to the original plat, the two lots along Broadway and the two lots along Jefferson are 73 ft wide. If one made the two lots along Broadway to be as wide as the eight lots in the middle by decreasing their width from 73 ft to 50 ft and adding that width difference to 23 feet to the lots along Jefferson, then the two lots along Jefferson would be 96 feet wide. Okay, these two lots along Jefferson have a total length of 418 ft. All right, so next you remove the 50ft rideaways on both sides, and I'm not sure it needs to be 50. Uh, but if you had to have those rideaways that you couldn't build on, then you'd have 318 ft left. Next, you switch it and put

all the houses uh facing Jefferson. And so you divide this into four lots. The 318 ft divide by four is 80 feet wide. Okay. And so an alternative would be to divide it into five lots which would be 64 ft wide. So if you did this by facing the front porches of these houses towards the road road Jefferson then the driveways are the back of the houses and they have to have a way to get into those. So therefore you put a 10-ft wide asphalt lane behind those houses connecting with the two lanes that he has there. And so you take 10 ft off. And so therefore, the depth of these lots would be 86 ft. So therefore, each lot, if you had four houses built, are 80 foot wide and 86 ft deep. So that's a nice lot. Okay. So 80 foot wide gives you plenty of room to to build one of these houses that he gave us a rendering of. And there's plenty of so you can get back. You want to build the house back from the street, right? So it so it it it conforms with how the rest of the houses along there are back from the street. So you want to be that do that. So therefore the 86 ft deep gives you that privilege. If you had five houses built then the lots would be 64 ft wide by 86 ft deep. So you'd still have plenty of space to build one of these houses. Um, the conclusion of all this is that if the developer really wants to do the right thing, if he really wants to, he's he's bound to determine do this. If he really wanted to do the right thing, he can build these eight houses as he's designed and then four or five houses facing Jefferson. If he built five houses facing Jefferson, he picks up the price of another house. So, it helps his price point for the whole subdivision. You see what I'm saying? And so therefore, what we think is he ought to present. He ought to really consider

this. And I want y'all to realize that this makes sense. We've all talked about the reasons that we want and they're all good and and proper. Uh but it makes sense to do this. And so as planning commission, I implore you to de to disapprove this motion. Let it go back. We we were going to develop meet with the developer tomorrow night. I don't know if he'll change his mind, but some of you can see I think how it makes sense to do this and so we implore you to do that. Please. Thank you very much. Do you have any questions? This is not the place for us to ask you question.

All right. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Anyone else? Good evening. I'm Terry Kascarelli and I live at 220 Fountain Avenue. And I would just like to say that I know that this is not easy for all of you. And I I know that we all appreciate the job that you do. And I would implore you to do what you always do, which is consider the people. We can look at plots. We can look at finances. We can look at building designs. We can look at all kinds of things, but at the end of the day, this affects our people. Our citizens make up our communities, our neighborhoods. That makes up Paduk. It makes it what it is. So if there are questions or concerns that currently exist, if there are possibilities of better outcomes, I think we need to look not only at now but at the future because this affects us now, our neighborhoods and our people as you've heard tonight. But this will exist for years to come. And that impact is why we implore you to reconsider the people, the citizens, the neighborhoods, our city before this decision becomes final. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Good evening. My name is Joanne Melnix. I live at 1509 Jefferson. And as you

could probably tell from my accent, I am not from Kentucky. Um, we moved here a year ago. And I'll I'll make this quick because all I want to say is why we moved here, why we live at 1509 Jefferson is because I told my husband I would not move to Kentucky or Paduca unless I lived on Jefferson Street. That was my requirement. I love the street. I love the community. I love what it how it looks. I love the feel. Now on that on the flip side, I I love Richard's idea and I might even buy one of those so I don't have to keep putting money into an old house. But that's what I wanted to tell you is that that street was the reason I'm we are living here is because of that type of community and what it represented. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else? All right. Do I hear a motion to close the public hearing? I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion. Second. Moved and seconded. All in favor of closing the public hearing, please signify by I.

I. Any opposed by like sign. All right, that motion passed. Um before we get into other commentary from the commissioners, I will point out that there was a comment about before this decision becomes final. What we are doing here is part of the process. It is not the final um process and I may be speaking out of turn and I would certainly encourage planning staff to jump in here and correct me if I'm wrong, but a development agreement between the city is the owner of the property. They will not agree to sell the property without a development agreement. That has yet to be inked. The selling of the property has yet to be inked. This is just one of the many steps that has to happen. So this is in no way the final any decision here being final. Would you say that is correct Josh Carol?

Yes sir. Okay. With that said uh where's my agenda? We need to entertain a motion. And uh Commissioner Heath, you have a motion for

I do. I'm Commissioner Lesley Heath of the Padika Planning and Commission offer the following motion. I move that this commission adopt a resolution approving the final subdivision of property located at 1501 Broadway. I further move set approval to be given based upon the following findings and facts. A request for proposals was generated and released for the redevelopment of 1501 Broadway. Second, the two responses for the RFP were received in the city Paduka board of commissioners found the best interest of the city of Paduka to enter negotiations toward a development agreement with one of the respondents, a residential real estate developer. Number three, the property is owned by the city of Paduka. Number four, six of the residential lots can be approved pursuant to KRS 100.361. Five remaining six residential lots can be approved pursuant to chapter 126 section 1091A of the Paduca zoning ordinance. Number six, a zone change is not required for this development. Number seven, McCracken County as a whole is currently short of 3,85 housing units which would be exuberated to 4,655 if not addressed. Number eight, the city of Paduca McCracken County comprehensive plan sets forth an overreaching theme, an overreaching planning theme throughout the plan to increase the quality, I'm sorry, the quantity and variety of the residential housing options. Number nine, goal two of the land use and community character states. A land use allocation and pattern that advances the area's key objectives to achieving greater housing supply and variety of supporting its economic development and taxbased needs. Number 10, goal one of the housing and neighborhood states. a quantity and diversity of housing options that make a

living in Paduca that makes living in Paduca and McCracken County attainable and inviting for a wide range of age groups and income levels including those critical to the area's economic success. Number 11, quality housing and quality of life are priorities for the board of commissioners pursuant to MO 3028. Number 12. This development would boost the supply and demand of housing in McCracken County. 13. The final plat meets all the state law and local ordinance requirements. Thank you. Is there a second?

Second. Moved and second. And now is the appropriate time for commissioners to ask any questions of staff or representatives.

So I I would have a question. I'm sorry. I was not present at the last meeting, but I do have a question about the goal for the um let me see where was I the and um where am I trying to find the h the plan that would um give more housing affordability. I'm not sure that the houses that I've seen that were planning to be built there would be affordable to every uh genre of local way of life. So, I think that um that would be something I would have a question about if that was addressed. Uh the price point of those homes. Um I'm a real estate agent, so that's a big deal for me.

I understand that. Josh or staff, would you like to comment on that? Yeah, I can certainly see where uh your point is coming from, Commissioner Heath. Um I guess it's all a matter of relevance whenever you look at what's affordable, what isn't to whatever your socioeconomic status is. Um we do want and encourage people of all development incomes to come to the city of Paduka because we do need everything. We need everything from apartments all the way up to executive homes. It's above and beyond this.

So my response to that would be it's simply a matter of uh how you interpret that as far as it relates to your econom socioeconomic status whether it's affordable or not. But that did come directly out of the comprehensive plan. So that's why it's repeated verbatim in this uh motion. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? The planning director want to speak to any of question is is the planning director wish to speak to any of these items? I believe the answer is yes.

It's a good idea. I I don't have any prepared remarks tonight. Um that was kind of the purpose in setting up the meeting for tomorrow night for the the um Jefferson Street Neighborhood Association asked to meet with the developer and so we we scheduled that as quickly as we could. Um but I don't have any remarks pertaining to this. However, if there are questions, I'll be glad to entertain them.

Would you re reiterate the the steps next after this? We're going to meet tonight to continue this. You're having a meeting with the developer tomorrow. I believe the city commission will tentatively address this next. It'll it'll either be on the 10th or the 24th. I'm not sure. City manager, do you know what agenda it may be on?

Okay. And part of that would depend on the finalization of a development agreement and correct and which would could potentially could address all these and also the comments just for the record the comments that we heard tonight and last month will be presented to the commission as well.

They they will be presented as well as they have been presented to the developer so far. Um as as Mr. Taylor mentioned he he came in and we met and he had some questions and things like that and I presented them to the developer as well. So all of that information will be given to the commission and um will be given or has been given so far to the developer. But from this point on again I I believe that um Mr. Denton it's almost your your next step is I believe the term you used was ministerial for lack of a better way. It's just a procedural issue. this is the next step and then the development agreement would be hammered out between the commission and and the developer and that does take some time.

Thank you. You have done a wonderful job of explaining that to me in the past. I just wanted these folks to hear that as well. Absolutely. Absolutely. cuz it there are multiple steps and they have to go in certain orders and so so that the commission can know what the plan is and if it's acceptable and if it is done by con Kentucky state law that's part of the process of it uh you know a preliminary plaque coming to the planning commission and then the final plaque coming before you without any changes which is what we're doing tonight and then the next step would be the developer agreement and that plaque would be included in that development agreement. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? All right.

He has his hand up. It is not time for questions. I'm sorry. That has passed. Unless unless a question comes from the planning commission. Any other questions from you all? I'm good. All right. Mr. Summers, will you call the role, please? Commissioner Heath. Nay. Commissioner Rhodess. I. Commissioner Benberry. I. Commissioner Chapman. I. Commissioner Griffin. I. Chairman Wade.

I All right. Um, I have no other items on the agenda. I do see that our next meeting is scheduled for April the 6, which has been pointed out to me that is spring break week. I don't know if that affects anyone, but the city government goes on. It it certainly does. I know that for my youngest, spring break is next week, which is very early. So, just depends. So, be prepared for any alter alterations to that. We can adjust as necessary, Mr. Chairman.

All right. Well, thank you all very much. Uh, thank you for your time. And uh with that this meeting is adjourned at 6:15. Bye.