Fort Thomas discusses sale of donated Carlisle Park parcel to regional grocery; residents raise preservation and geotechnical concerns

A City of Fort Thomas staff member told the council the city is discussing an offer from a regional, Fortune 500 grocery company to buy a parcel at Carlisle Park on Memorial Parkway for $650,000 and develop a multistory store and parking.

The parkland was donated to the city in 2021 and the staff member said the parcel has extensive engineered fill and drainage problems that will require remediation: borings completed in February 2024 showed filled materials to depths ranging from about 20 feet to 71.7 feet, unexplained groundwater in two borings at roughly 30 feet, and a thin layer of slag near the bottom of one boring. The staff member said a previous drainage analysis estimated stormwater/stabilization work at between $415,000 and $845,000 and that geotechnical recommendations included removing about 6 feet of surface soil and recompacting in lifts to limit future settling.

The staff member described the developer’s preliminary plan as a roughly 47,000-square-foot, two-story retail building with a hidden parking structure, an estimated 251 parking spaces, and a 3,200-square-foot liquor store; the company expects about 2,000 visitors per day, 15–20 tractor-trailer deliveries per week and about 50 smaller deliveries per week. The developer has submitted a letter of intent (LOI) and, if the council authorizes it, the mayor would be empowered to sign an agreement allowing the company to perform due diligence. The city staff member said the developer is not requesting financial incentives and would pay $650,000 for the property.

Why it matters: the parcel was donated to Fort Thomas to be used as parkland, and the proposed sale would transfer public green space into private commercial use. Residents who registered to speak said selling Carlisle Park would run counter to the city’s “city in a park” vision and urged the council to solicit broader public input before moving forward.

Details and approvals: the staff member said sale and development would require multiple approvals: due diligence by the buyer (including additional geotechnical and survey work at the buyer’s expense), a zone change (the staff member noted the parcel is currently residential and the likely target zoning would be Neighborhood Commercial Office, or NCO), planning commission review and potential board of adjustment action, design review board (DRB) review and tree commission approvals, and Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) sign-off where needed. City staff noted that Campbell County issues commercial building permits in Fort Thomas once local approvals are complete. If the purchase and approvals proceed, staff estimated occupancy could be two to three years away.

Public comment and council questions: residents at the meeting raised several concerns. Joan Ferris, a Fort Thomas resident, urged council members to watch an earlier planning-and-zoning meeting recording and said she believed the commission had not reflected council discussion about conducting a new public survey to inform a comprehensive plan update. Lori Lambert, a resident, described regional experience with clay/shale instability and said she was concerned about the feasibility and safety of building on the parcel. Holly Hollister, a resident, said Fort Thomas has limited green space and opposed converting donated parkland into commercial use for roughly $650,000.

City funding context: the staff member said the city currently has $300,000 budgeted this year to address drainage at the site but that the city would defer that work if the parcel is sold and the buyer elects to perform remediation. Staff emphasized the buyer would conduct its own geotechnical testing as part of due diligence.

Next steps: the staff member said the item will appear on the council agenda in two weeks as an initial order authorizing the mayor to enter the LOI; council action would be required to allow the developer to proceed with due diligence. No sale or transfer would occur until planning commission, DRB and council zoning approvals (and any other required permits) are complete, and staff said the land would not transfer and the city would not be paid until the development plan and sale process concluded.

The meeting record shows the council did not vote to sell the property at this session; rather, it discussed authorizing the LOI and scheduling future actions for public agendas.