Planning & Zoning Minutes – August 18, 2026

Chairperson Nick Reitman opened the regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. on the above date, with the Pledge of Allegiance and the following members answering roll call:

Present:           Nick Reitman                          Tony Webb                         Randy Nehus      

                        Rebecca Stadelmann             Justin Gamble                    Sonny Markus

                        Tom Simpson          

Also Present:  Megan Snyder, Assistant City Clerk                 David Plummer, City Administrator

                        Andy Schabell, Mayor                                       Mike Duncan, Attorney

                        Cindy Minter, CC P&Z Director                         Shawn Riggs, City Engineer

PUBLIC HEARING –

To hear and gather evidence and public comment regarding approval of preliminary

plat located at 1671 Grandview Road.

Nick Reitman opened the public hearing at 7:02 p.m.

Cindy Minter, CC P&Z Director: Gave a brief recap of the things that have taken place to date and walked through what the revised current plan is. See attached.

There was a question asked whether the landscaping plan included the required demonstration of vegetation coverage at or around the retaining walls under Article 3, section 28.

Jeff Flaharty, Cardinal Engineering: Mr. Flaharty explained this level of detail would be addressed during stage 2, with final detailed design of the retaining walls occurring in the later phase. Mr. Reitman clarified the current review was for the preliminary site plan, not the final construction details.

There was a question about stormwater runoff and erosion control, noting that stormwater was a primary concern with development projects.

Mr. Flaharty explained the project is subject to Section 700 requirements, which require post-development runoff to be equal to or less than pre-development conditions. The stormwater plans will be submitted to SD1 for review, and any comments or required modifications will be addressed.

Mr. Reitman referenced prior concerns regarding the KOPE formation on the property. Mr. Flaharty explained the roadway has been relocated specifically to avoid the KOPE formation and prevent excavation into that area.

Mr. Reitman noted the previous concern regarding the height of the retaining walls. He acknowledged the applicant had addressed the concern by relocating the units and substantially reducing the wall height.

Ms. Stadelmann asked about a previous concern regarding the slope of the walking areas. Mrs. Minter explained the walking trail that had previously extended near the cul-de-sac and up the hillside toward the detention area, has been removed from the plan.

Ms. Stadelmann raised the concern expressed by residents regarding the depth of the geotechnical test pits. Mr. Gamble raised a concern that the test pits had reportedly been filled in the same day and questioned whether they had remained open long enough to identify potential groundwater or springs.

Andrew Lageman, Civil Solutions, Geotechnical Engineer: Mr. Lageman explained that the test pits were appropriate for the proposed development and building loads. Bedrock was encountered at depth, and the material found at the bottom of the test pits was relatively consistent throughout the site, providing confidence in the subsurface conditions. He also clarified that the excavations were left open overnight for at least approximately 18 hours. He stated, based on the rock formations, depth, proximity of rock, and hydraulic conductivity of the material, evidence of groundwater or flowing water would have been observed during that period if present.

Mr. Reitman asked whether the reported well on the property was located in an area that would be subject to excavation.

McKinley Miller, D.R. Horton: Ms. Miller stated the company’s Phase I environmental assessment did not identify a well on the property. She further stated that the applicant’s wetland consultant also did not identify a well and that the previous landowner reported having no knowledge of a well on the property.

Mr. Simpson raised concerns regarding soil compaction and restoration of vegetation, and Mr. Reitman identified vegetation disturbance as a significant concern.

Ms. Miller stated the existing tree and vegetation disturbance was minimal. Mr. Lageman explained the 98% compaction requirement applies to soils supporting construction loads, while areas intended for vegetation would receive topsoil suitable for vegetation growth and would not be compacted in a manner that would prevent vegetation from growing.

Mr. Nehus asked whether there could be excessive runoff or erosion during the construction period, particularly during heavy rainfall. He also asked whether the installation of foundations and concrete would help stabilize the site.

Mr. Flaherty explained that construction-phase stormwater and erosion control are regulated by SD1 and the State of Kentucky through the required SWPPP plan. Silt fencing and other erosion-control measures will be installed, and inspections are required following rain events to ensure erosion and sediment controls remain effective. He also explained that construction improvements can stabilize portions of the site, but streets, seeding, and established grass provide significant stabilization and help prevent erosion and soil from washing away.

Ms. Miller stated that D.R. Horton uses a third-party company to monitor erosion and sediment-control measures. The company visits active construction sites at least weekly and following rain events. Mr. Flaherty noted that this monitoring is in addition to the requirements of SD1 and the State of Kentucky.

Shawn Riggs, City Engineer: Mr. Riggsmentioned that over the course of the design iterations to date, a lot of improvements have been made to minimize the amount of disturbance and ensure hillside stability. It’s evolved quite a bit since the first time the design was presented, and he believes this has gone in the right direction. He doesn’t have any objections or concerns about what has been submitted so far.

Mike Vetter, D.R. Horton’s Attorney: Mr. Vetter stated that D.R. Horton made extensive efforts to address the City’s and State’s requests, provide answers, and make revisions to the development plans. He emphasized that D.R. Horton is a large, reputable builder that wants to enter the community responsibly and construct a well-engineered development.

He also explained that the retaining wall is proposed as a common area so that responsibility for maintaining and repairing said wall would remain with the overall development and community rather than being divided among individual homeowners. This would prevent an individual homeowner from being solely responsible if the portion of the retaining wall adjacent to their property developed a problem.

Nick Reitman opened the floor to public comment at 7:22 p.m.

Mary Runyon: She asked about the City’s process for collecting storm debris, noting the recent storms had left large amounts of branches throughout the city and that she had accumulated approximately five bags. Mr. Plummer offered to discuss the matter with her separately.

Adelaide Koenig: She thanked the Commission for addressing many of the concerns raised about the development but expressed concern that the development could impact endangered bats and other protected species. She questioned the accuracy of the tree survey, particularly the lack of identified hickory trees, which can provide bat habitat. She stated that Kentucky Fish and Wildlife indicated a high probability of impacts to bats and asked whether the City or developer had contacted the appropriate wildlife officials regarding potential endangered bats and mussels in the area.

Ms. Miller explained that the tree survey was completed in accordance with the City’s requirements, including identifying the species and diameter of the trees. She stated that the survey was only required to cover trees within 10 feet of the disturbance limit, rather than the entire development site, and that the applicant completed the survey accordingly. She further explained that because the current application is only for the preliminary plat, the specific timeline for development activities, such as clearing, grading, and moving dirt, will be addressed during the Stage 2 review, assuming the preliminary plan is approved.

Mike Wallagura, Rainbow, Environmental Consultant: He explained his role was to evaluate the property for jurisdictional waters, wetlands, and streams and to determine whether an Army Corps of Engineers permit would be required. The project was designed to avoid the jurisdictional streams on the property, therefore there is no federal permitting connection that would trigger endangered species protections.

He noted that seasonal tree clearing is a recommended best practice for protecting bats, generally between October 1 and March 31, although he could not speak to the developer’s proposed clearing schedule. He also stated the streams on the property are primarily small, ephemeral headwater streams that would not be suitable habitat for mussels.

Eric Russo, Executive Director of the Hillside Trust: Mr. Russo is a resident of Cincinnati and spoke regarding concerns with the proposed hillside development. He explained his extensive experience with hillside development, landslides, erosion, and slope instability throughout the region. After reviewing the project’s geotechnical report, he raised concerns regarding who would ultimately be responsible for the site’s global stability, the lack of a demonstrated site-specific factor of safety for the affected hillsides, and the long-term responsibility for any future slope instability or erosion issues. He recommended that stability be evaluated under both existing and proposed conditions, including groundwater, runoff, construction loading, excavation, and long-term slope stability. Mr. Russo emphasized that he was not stating the property could not be developed but questioned whether the extent of hillside disturbance and associated risks had been adequately evaluated and whether long-term responsibility for those risks had been clearly established. He also noted the potential financial impact of future landslide issues and provided the Commission with educational materials regarding landslides and hillside development.

Mr. Vetter questioned Mr. Russo regarding his professional qualifications and asked whether he or Hillside Trust held any licenses in Kentucky. Eric confirmed that neither he nor Hillside Trust holds Kentucky professional licenses and clarified that, although they own property in Northern Kentucky and have participated in hillside development reviews, he is not a licensed engineer, geologist, or other licensed professional.

Mr. Lageman, the applicant’s geotechnical representative, noted that the greater Cincinnati area has significant landslide concerns and stated that Civil Solutions recently worked with the City of Cincinnati to review building standards and best practices for hillside development. He explained that Civil Solutions are committed to best practices for construction in hillside communities. He further stated that questions regarding global stability, factors of safety, and responsibility for those matters would be addressed during subsequent design phases, as they are not part of the current preliminary design review.

Tracy Songer: Sheasked who would be accountable if issues or concerns were discovered after the preliminary plan was approved and questioned when the developer or engineers would discontinue involvement with the project.

Mr. Lageman, a professional engineer and Northern Kentucky resident, explained that his professional engineering license carries personal responsibility for his work and that engineers do not simply abandon a project. He stated that applicable building codes establish the required design standards and durations for homes, commercial buildings, roadways, and infrastructure, and emphasized that engineers stand behind their professional work.

Chris Flannery: He questioned how the term “natural slope” is defined under Section 3.28 of the Hillside Development Controls. City Engineer Mr. Riggs explained that the zoning code does not specifically define the term and that it is therefore interpreted by the engineers using generally accepted engineering practices. He then explained that the analysis focuses on the existing slope within the limits of disturbance and that the design had been modified to minimize hillside disturbance and stability concerns. He noted that the original plan included three retaining wall sections, with one approximately 20 feet high, while the revised plan has two wall sections with the tallest being approximately 6 feet. The applicant’s engineer, Mr. Flaherty, explained that cross-sections were prepared for areas with slopes greater than 20% and that the proposed homes were evaluated to ensure they comply with the requirement, that structures remain no more than two stories or 35 feet above the natural ground, as applicable. It was ultimately clarified that “natural slope” refers to the existing ground conditions prior to development. The applicant also stated that the proposed two-story homes would be approximately 20 feet or less from the top of the foundation to the gutter line, while ranch homes would be approximately 10 feet or less.

A concern was also raised regarding walkout basements and how the height requirements would apply to homes constructed on the existing slope. The applicant explained that walkout basements are proposed and that the foundations would be positioned at the natural ground elevation, with fill used toward the rear portions of the homes. The applicant stated that the applicable cross-sections demonstrate compliance with the hillside requirements.

Alicia Mueller: Shequestioned whether the hillside regulations were being applied to the entire site, particularly where significant amounts of fill are proposed. She referenced areas where the plans appeared to show up to approximately 40 feet of fill and expressed concern that homes would be constructed in those areas. She questioned whether the site’s overall stability and a factor of safety could be adequately determined without considering all of the proposed fill and site conditions. Ms. Mueller also presented Exhibit A to the Board on behalf of Jim Thomas, a Kentucky-licensed professional civil engineer and land surveyor, which included cross-sections of the proposed fill areas and was presented to illustrate the elevations and amount of fill proposed throughout portions of the development. She stated that Mr. Thomas was unable to attend the meeting but had authorized her to present the materials on his behalf.

The engineers explained the hillside regulations apply to existing slopes greater than 20%; areas that are not over 20% are not subject to the same hillside restrictions. Mr. Lageman, the applicant’s geotechnical engineer, stated that substantial fill can be used safely when properly engineered and that, in this case, the fill can provide a buttressing effect that helps flatten and stabilize the slope. He emphasized that the safety of the fill depends on proper construction procedures, including controlled placement, thin lifts, compaction testing, and quality assurance. Civil Solutions would monitor the placement and compaction of the fill throughout construction. He stated that his firm would not approve improperly placed fill and noted they have experience with substantial fill depths and engineered foundations.

Andy Koenig: Mr. Koenig questioned whether the engineers had experience constructing homes or other structures on substantial depths of fill and specifically asked about approximately 40 feet of fill. Mr. Lageman stated that Civil Solutions has experience with substantial depths of fill and that walls have been constructed on approximately 40 feet of fill, while the final foundation plans for this project had not yet been completed. Mr. Flaherty further explained that Cardinal Engineering has designed subdivisions involving more than 40 feet of fill, including projects where ridges were cut and valleys were filled. He stated that properly engineered and compacted fill can be stronger than the natural ground and that appropriate quality control is critical.

Tracy Songer: Ms. Songer continued to ask questions regarding how the natural slope, foundation depth, and test-pit information relate to the proposed homes, particularly where homes may be placed over substantial fill. The applicant explained the foundations would be located at the natural ground elevation and that the proposed homes were evaluated through cross-sections to verify compliance with the height restrictions. The discussion also clarified that the current plans are preliminary and that additional foundation and construction details will be developed and reviewed during subsequent phases.

Overall, the engineers stated, the proposed development has been evaluated against the applicable hillside regulations, including the 20% slope threshold and building-height requirements. They indicated the site design had been revised to reduce grading and retaining-wall heights, minimize disturbance, avoid KOPE formations, and address slope stability concerns, and that proper engineering, compaction testing, quality control, and continued professional oversight would be required as the project proceeds.

Jen Koenig: She questioned how the proposed project qualifies as a conservation development in light of the City’s Comprehensive Plan goals regarding environmental protection, preservation of open space, neighborhood character, walkability, and protection of environmentally sensitive areas. It was explained that a significant portion of the approximately 30-acre site will remain open space and that the conservation designation allows smaller lots in order to preserve that open space. The applicant stated that approximately 13 acres would be disturbed, including areas within backyards and the overall disturbance limits, meaning less than half of the property would be disturbed. It was also explained that the site plan had been revised to reduce the number of lots, relocate portions of the development, remove the walking path due to steep slopes, and minimize hillside disturbance and tree removal.

Mrs. Koenig also questioned how the removal of the walking path would maintain the City’s goal of walkability. It was explained that sidewalks are included throughout the development, while the walking path was removed because of concerns regarding steep slopes and the potential impact of cutting into the hillside.

Mrs. Koenig asked who would be responsible for monitoring environmental protections and erosion control measures during construction. Mrs. Minter explained that multiple parties would monitor the development, including the contractor’s engineer, City Engineer, SD1 for stormwater and erosion control, building inspectors, code enforcement, and Public Works. Inspections would occur throughout construction, and corrective measures would be required, when necessary, particularly following significant rain events.

Mrs. Koenig also referenced the geotechnical report’s recommendation for engineering oversight during construction and asked whether an engineer would be present on site. Mr. Lageman, the applicant’s geotechnical engineer, explained that engineering oversight would occur when structural materials and soil related work are being performed, including soil compaction, concrete placement, and subgrade preparation, to ensure the work complies with the geotechnical recommendations and applicable state building standards.

Keith Kennedy: He asked for clarification regarding the site plans and tree markings, as he was unable to clearly distinguish what areas represented existing conditions, areas that would be modified, and areas that would remain preserved. The applicant’s engineer explained that the plans identified existing trees and showed the trees that would be retained, including trees along the ends of the property, as well as existing grass areas. Mr. Kennedy asked whether the identified trees would remain undisturbed, and it was confirmed that they would be retained as shown. Mr. Flaherty further explained that the trees would be monitored to ensure they remain in their current condition. It clarified that some trees would be disturbed as part of the development, but the disturbance would be limited and would remain within the development site.

Steve Schuchter expressed concerns regarding groundwater and the presence of a spring or well on the property. He stated that he had previously provided a photograph of the feature and believed it was located near the proposed development area. Steve stated that he had personally observed the spring and had discussed it with the property owner, whom he said was aware of its existence. He questioned the potential impact on hillside stability if groundwater or a spring were encountered during excavation. The applicant stated that a Phase I environmental assessment and wetland delineation had been completed and that no well had been identified on the property. The applicant’s geotechnical engineer explained that geotechnical test pits and other discrete testing locations cannot necessarily identify every groundwater feature across an entire site. He stated that the project includes provisions for under-drainage and water drainage systems and that, if trapped or flowing groundwater or a spring is encountered during construction, it can be safely captured and directed through the site’s drainage system. It was further explained that encountering groundwater or springs is not uncommon in areas with limestone bedrock and that appropriate construction and drainage measures are used to mitigate the issue.

Mr. Schuchter also described a 2017 incident involving groundwater and a trench collapse on the lower portion of the property. He stated that a contractor working on a trench was trapped when the trench collapsed and that significant water and mud were encountered despite there reportedly being no rain that week. He expressed concern that this incident demonstrated the potential for groundwater conditions on the property that may not have been identified during the geotechnical investigation. He questioned whether the presence of groundwater could create additional risks during excavation and contribute to slope instability or landslides, particularly given his residence at the top of the hill. In response, the geotechnical engineer reiterated that groundwater encountered during construction can be addressed through established engineering controls, including drainage and water-capture measures, and that the construction process would include provisions for managing unexpected groundwater conditions.

Mary Glennon: Ms. Glennonexpressed concerns regarding groundwater, hillside stability, fill placement, drainage, and potential impacts to neighboring properties. She questioned whether the groundwater feature previously discussed was a well or spring and whether additional investigation would be conducted. The applicant and engineers explained that environmental and wetland investigations had not identified a well but acknowledged that groundwater or springs can be encountered during construction. They stated that appropriate drainage and underdrain systems would be used to safely capture and direct groundwater if encountered.

Ms. Glennon also questioned the management of stormwater and groundwater, particularly the potential impact on properties located below the development. The engineers explained the proposed detention system is designed to control stormwater runoff to pre-development conditions and accommodate significant storm events, while groundwater encountered during construction would be addressed through engineered drainage measures.

She raised additional concerns regarding the restrictive covenants and responsibility for future grading and drainage changes. City Engineer explained that the covenants are intended to prevent individual homeowners from making changes that could negatively affect drainage or neighboring properties, with enforcement of the HOA covenants generally being the responsibility of the HOA.

Ms. Glennon also questioned the Hillside Development Controls, the 20% slope requirement, and the proposed placement of substantial amounts of fill, including whether fill could contribute to slope instability or affect neighboring properties. The City Engineer clarified which portions of the site were subject to the hillside regulations and noted that the project remained at the preliminary stage, with additional engineering and final construction plans to be completed. The applicant’s engineers explained that the proposed fill would be placed and compacted in accordance with engineering standards and that drainage and erosion-control measures would be incorporated into the construction plans.

Finally, Ms. Glennon asked about the possibility of extending sanitary sewer service to neighboring properties currently using septic systems, particularly if future development affects existing septic systems. It explained that a connection could be considered if it was technically feasible and appropriate easements were available, but that existing elevations may make some connections impractical. Ms. Glennon requested that the issue and potential impacts to neighboring properties continue to be considered during the final design and construction phases.

Tracy Songer: She expressed concerns on the long-term effects and accountability associated with the proposed development. She expressed concern that increased stormwater runoff could impact her septic system and neighboring properties, particularly given the extensive grading and fill proposed for the site. Based on her own past experience, she questioned how long the fill would need to settle and whether the development would remain stable 20 or more years into the future. She also raised concerns about who would be responsible if settlement, erosion, drainage problems, or hillside movement occurred after the developer was no longer involved, and whether homeowners and surrounding property owners could be left responsible for those issues. The applicant’s engineer explained fill would be placed in thin lifts and could be preloaded and monitored to allow settlement to occur. The engineers also indicated stormwater runoff would be designed to be no greater than existing conditions. Regarding long-term responsibility, Mr. Webb explained that responsibility generally follows property ownership and that insurance options may be available for mud or landslide damage. The developer also discussed the one-, two-, and ten-year warranties provided with the homes, as well as performance and maintenance bonds that may be used for unfinished development infrastructure. However, Mrs. Minter clarified that no development bond was currently being required because the project was still considered premature for that type of bonding.

Andrew Koenig: He expressed concerns, centered primarily on stormwater management, construction site oversight, and long-term maintenance. He questioned whether SD1 had actually approved the stormwater plans, and it was clarified that the plans had been submitted and reviewed but had not yet received final approval. He also asked how the detention pond would function and where the water would ultimately drain. His main concern was who would monitor the silt fencing, sediment traps, and detention pond during and after construction, and whether there would be a proactive point of contact for residents rather than relying only on problems being reported after they occurred. In response, Mrs. Minter explained, SD1 is responsible for stormwater oversight, conducts inspections and can issue enforcement actions or stop-work orders, while the contractor is also required to conduct documented inspections after rain events. Mrs. Minter noted staff from the departments of Planning and Building Inspection, Public Works, and Code Enforcement would also be in the area, and residents can always contact city officials if problems arise. It was further explained that the development has a stormwater pollution prevention plan, contractor self-monitoring requirements, and additional site monitoring. Mr. Koenig also questioned the responsibility for retaining walls, particularly after the developer leaves. The developer’s attorney clarified the retaining walls would be an HOA responsibility, meaning responsibility would be shared by the development rather than falling on an individual homeowner. The developer also explained the HOA would have ongoing dues and budgeting for maintenance, including retaining walls and other common infrastructure, before eventually being turned over to the homeowners.

Alicia Mueller: Ms. Mueller focused on the geotechnical analysis and questioned why additional laboratory testing associated with the Slope Durability Index (SDI) had not been included in the preliminary geotechnical work. She referenced other projects, including the City’s new 48,000-square-foot facility and development in Ludlow, where she understood additional testing had been performed. She questioned how the proposed development could establish a factor of safety of a 1.5 without similar testing.

The applicant’s geotechnical engineer explained that the SDI testing was not included within the scope of the current preliminary investigation because, in his professional opinion, it was not necessary to evaluate this particular application at this stage. He explained that soil placement, compaction, construction methods, and quality control were significant factors in determining the long-term performance of the proposed fill and slopes.

Ms. Mueller questioned whether the absence of the additional testing meant the proposed site could be considered safe without having the information she believed was necessary to establish the required factor of safety.

The engineer again explained the current application was for preliminary approval, and that detailed slope-stability analysis, additional testing, and final engineering would occur as part of the Stage 2 improvement plans and subsequent construction review.

Ms. Mueller continued to question how the city could determine the development would be safe without the additional testing. The discussion returned several times to the distinction between the preliminary geotechnical review current before the Commission and the more detailed engineering analysis that would be required before construction and grading could proceed.

Commission members and City staff clarified, approval of the preliminary plat would not constitute approval of the final construction plans. They explained that additional engineering information and conditions would be addressed during the subsequent review process.

Ms. Mueller also questioned whether the city could ultimately be responsible if the development experienced slope failure, settlement, or other problems years after construction. The applicant’s representatives explained the role of the engineers, applicable building and engineering standards, and the continuing responsibilities associated with the final design and construction of the development.

Ms. Mueller returned to the question of the additional soil and SDI testing and questioned why the City would not require the testing as part of the current review. The Commission and engineering representatives reiterated, the preliminary application was being evaluated under the requirements applicable to that stage of development and that additional technical analysis would occur before grading.

The discussion continued with additional questions regarding the proposed areas of substantial fill, including areas where the plans indicated fill depths approaching approximately 40 feet. The engineers explained that substantial engineered fill can be used in hillside development when placed in controlled lift, properly compacted, tested, and monitored. They further explained that the final foundation and slope-stability designs had not yet been completed because the project remained at the preliminary-plan stage.

Ms. Mueller continued to question whether the proposed testing should be completed before the preliminary plat was approved rather during the subsequent phase.

Following further discussion, the Commission considered whether the requested soil and SDI testing could be incorporated as a condition of the preliminary approval. This would allow the testing and resulting slope-stability analysis to be completed during Phase 2 and before grading or other earth-disturbing activity could proceed.

It was further clarified that the requested testing could provide additional information regarding the site’s soil characteristics and slope stability, but that no single laboratory test could guarantee that a development would remain stable for a specific period of years.

The discussion also addressed whether the public would have an opportunity to review or comment on the additional engineering information before grading began. City representatives explained the preliminary plat did not authorize grading and that the Stage 2 improvement plans and related engineering requirements would need to be reviewed before earth-disturbing activities could proceed.

The Commission ultimately incorporated a requirement for necessary testing to demonstrate a slope-stability analysis with a minimum factor of safety of 1.5 as a condition of the preliminary approval.

Due to increasingly unconstructive comments and interruptions from members of the audience, Mr. Reitman determined that the public hearing could no longer proceed in a productive manner

Mr. Reitman closed the public hearing to public comments at 10:11p.m.

Ms. Stadelmann asked for more information about the testing Ms. Mueller proposed. The engineer explained, using professional engineering assumptions based on experience with local soils, is standard practice and that the additional laboratory test would provide more information but would not guarantee the site would remain stable for 20 years. D.R. Horton indicated it would perform the test if the City engineer determined it was necessary. The discussion then focused on whether the proposed 40-foot fills were unusual, with the engineers and developer citing other projects where significant fill and hillside construction had been successfully used.

MOTION: Justin Gamble made a motion to approve the Preliminary Plat, based upon a revised residential subdivision with the following conditions which shall be included in the final construction plan:

• The revised plan be limited to the proposed 43 residential lots;
• All applicable utility approvals include the review and approval by the City Engineer, including the Land Disturbance Permit by SD1;
• The final construction plan indicates the areas of disturbance, including utility lines.  This area shall be delineated in the field prior to construction;
• Earth disturbing activities including tree removal, shall be limited to only those areas involved in the construction activities as delineated by the area of disturbance.   However, trees which are dead, diseased, or considered an invasive species may be removed throughout the site;
• Compaction reports are required for all areas intended for roadway improvements or home sites that require the placement of fill.  Engineered footers or foundations may be required for home sites placed upon fill.
• The Landscape Plan be updated given consideration of the geotechnical and location of the retaining walls.
• Necessary testing to demonstrate a slope stability analysis with a minimum factor of safety of 1.5.

The approval of the Preliminary Plat does not absolve the applicant from approval of the final plat by the City Engineer, Planning Commission or their duly authorized representative.

Bases for Staff Recommendation:

• Proper notice has been given in accordance with the Alexandria Zoning Ordinance.
• The site plan is in conformity of the Alexandria Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations, including hillside development controls.
• Finding of facts City recommendation, information provided and discussion at the meeting.

Seconded by Tony Webb. All in favor, the motion passed 7-0-0.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES – July 21, 2026

MOTION: Tony Webb made a motion to approve the minutes of July 21, 2026, meeting, seconded by Tom Simpson.  All in favor, the motion passed 7-0-0. 

VISITORS AND GUESTS – None

NEW BUSINESS – None

UNFINISHED BUSINESS – None

INTERNAL BUSINESS –

Treasurer’s Report: Randy Nehus presented a bill from Ziegler & Schneider, statement number 295 in the amount of $456.

MOTION: Tony Webb made a motion to approve the bill from Ziegler & Schneider, statement number 295 in the amount of $456.00,  seconded by Becca Stadelmann. All in favor, the motion passed 7-0-0.

P&Z Permit Report: Reports attached.

City Council Report: Mr. Plummer provided a public service announcement regarding a street repair project on Breckenridge, including a temporary closure for replacement of the concrete street. He also reported that substantial completion of the new facility remained anticipated for September, with the move expected to begin in October and an opening ceremony anticipated in November.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION: Randy Nehus made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Tony Webb.  All in favor, the motion passed 7-0-0.  Meeting adjourned at 10:38 p.m.  

For the official signed minutes, please contact the City Clerk’s office at 859-635-4125 or email starter@alexandriaky.gov.