The Fort Thomas zoning ordinance project was the focus of two packed meetings in the last month. At the June council meeting, residents reiterated their concerns and asked council to represent their views at a joint meeting between council and the city’s planning commission.
Council and the city’s planning and zoning commission members had been meeting separately to review the latest draft, but the joint meeting brought them together face-to-face to discuss concerns and ask questions.
Alisa Duffy Rogers, representing CT Consultants in the project, said the meeting also would provide answers to several open questions and provide the clarification necessary to create the final draft. Once that was complete, the city would hold public hearings with property owners affected by zoning changes.
Although the initial plan was to complete the discussion at the joint meeting, after more than three hours, officials decided a second joint meeting would be necessary. They have set the second meeting for Wednesday, July 31.
Residents express concerns
Several residents spoke at the council meeting. Resident Peggy Maggio’s comments summed up many of those expressed by the residents.
“You talked about how we have a zoning code that needs to be fixed. I agree with you,” she told council. “You said to make it a little bit better. It needs to be completely better. I think a lot of people are here tonight because they want to keep Fort Thomas the way it is. While future development is inevitable, and change can be good, we can also too easily lose the charm, character and unique nature of our small city that we love. As currently written, I believe that the proposed zoning ordinance draft falls far short of this goal.”
She brought together many of the concerns expressed by residents at the meeting:
- Define an end goal that reflects the desire of the community to remain small and historic.
- Reject the idea that more density is needed, especially in the city’s business districts.
- Reject the idea of buildings featuring residential units above commercial spaces in business districts.
- Preserve historic buildings and character whenever possible.
- Limit the height of buildings in the commercial zones and reject the idea that an individual zoning administrator can decide on variance requests that could increase building heights by up to 10 percent.
- Keep the current ratio of 33% multifamily units to single-family units.
“What seems to be the holy grail to the zoning effort is bringing properties into conformity. We live in a city that is 150 years old,” said Maggio. “We are going to have nonconforming buildings, no matter how good the zoning is. We have to accept that.”
A study of housing in Northern Kentucky has revealed troubling trends for housing in the region, with the largest need being for “workforce housing” for households earning between $15 and $25 per hour, with monthly housing costs between $500 and $1,500. The region needs about 3,000 more housing units to provide for people within that income range, according to the study. The demand for one- to two-bedroom rentals and owned properties consistently exceeds their supply, while supply for three and four-bedroom properties consistently exceeds demand. The study suggests that the region needs to build 6,650 housing units to support economic development in the next five years, which equates to 1,330 units per year. Read more here.
Understanding NKY’s housing shortage
City Administrator Matt Kremer responded that the current zoning ordinance does not protect against many of the issues residents have identified. One of the goals of the update process has been to give the city more control, he said.
Joint meeting: phase four
Duffy Rogers facilitated the joint meeting between council and planning commission members. The city officially began phase four at the end of May. It’s the final review and beginning of the adoption process, she explained.
The consultant first outlined the five single-family districts in the draft document. All existing residential districts would be retained. These include five single-family zoning districts, one two-family and two multi-family. Another single-family zone would be added to the Town Center zone.
She had one outstanding question on the single family residential districts. She noted that there are some two-family dwellings in single residential districts. At present, these are considered nonconforming uses of the dwellings. The issue for those who own these buildings is that it is very difficult to get an improvement loan for a non-conforming property.
She proposed changing the existing two-families to conforming uses. This would not permit new two-families in the zone, but it would allow current owners to improve their properties. It could also allow a two-family dwelling to be rebuilt if it was knocked down due to a natural disaster such as fire or tornado. She asked those present if they would agree to this change to make existing two-families in those districts conforming.
All agreed this would be an acceptable change.
Questions and issues in commercial zones
Next, Duffy Rogers went through several of the changes proposed for commercial zones. For all the commercial zones discussed at the meeting, there was agreement on two points:
- Building heights should be restricted to 40 feet.
- Requests for building height variances of more than 5% would go to the board of adjustment and not to the zoning administrator. Other types of variances, up to 10%, would go to the zoning administrator.
Another issue, which has not yet been fully resolved, was whether to also limit the number of floors. Depending on the zone, some felt a cap of two floors was necessary, while others felt two-and-one half floor (creating storage space, for example) would be acceptable.
Duffy Rogers explained that some older buildings in the commercial zones are under 40 feet tall but have three floors. These were built before modern changes that have required higher ceiling heights to achieve the desirable Class A office status.
One of the most contentious topics of discussion was the goal of increasing density within the commercial zones. In several of the commercial zones, it had been proposed to allow buildings to have commercial uses on the first floor but residential uses on the floor or floors above; this is known as residential over nonresidential.
Those in favor of allowing potential residential over nonresidential argued that it has been allowed in the past and may be an expectation of some developers. Limiting this would remove an option and could have a chilling effect on those interested in development in the zones in question. The option would still exist for developers to try to seek a zoning change through the city.
Council member Andy Ellison said, “I haven’t heard a single person say ‘let’s increase density’…Has anybody in this room heard from anyone who wants to increase density? I think the entire town, all the residents, want this [restriction]…To me, that answers it.”
Outline of decisions
Here is an outline of decisions in the commercial zones discussed:
Alexandria Pike Mixed Use Zone: Includes businesses along Alexandria Pike and is divided into two subzones.
- No residential over nonresidential would be permitted.
- Building heights are limited to 40 feet.
- The question of limiting the number of stories is left unresolved until further discussion.
Neighborhood Commercial/Office District: This zone is the only one that is use-based rather than place-based. The proposed zone would incorporate five disparate sites currently zoned “General Commercial and Professional Office” — Fort Thomas Plaza, Highland and Grand area, 600 South Fort Thomas Avenue at Bivouac, 200 Memorial Parkway (a veterinary clinic) and 1960 Memorial Parkway (a dance studio).
- The Neighborhood Commercial/Office District would only apply to Fort Thomas Plaza and the Highland and Grand area.
- The other areas would remain as Professional Office, but that zone description would be reworked to include restrictions discussed. Duffy Rogers will bring a proposal to the next meeting for review.
- Building heights limited to 40 feet (current zones allow 50 feet)
- No residential over nonresidential going forward. Those residential dwellings that now exist above nonresidential in the zone would be allowed to continue (with the same number of units) as a restricted use.
Central Business District — Town Center: This district includes the Town Center core, supporting district, and residential subzones. The core includes several older buildings that were once residences but are now a mix of residential, businesses and residential over nonresidential. These have pitched roofs, and some have 2.5 stories.
- Limit building heights to 40 feet in the core and supporting districe.
- Allow only two stories on a flat-roof building but allow up to 2.5 stories for a building with a sloping (6:12 pitch) roof.
- Those existing buildings with more than two stories would be allowed as a restricted use.
What’s left to go
The discussion ended before all the questions about the Central Business District could be answered. Outstanding questions will be discussed at the next meeting.
- How should building depth and width be handled?
- Can the Town Center be expanded to include the parcel behind WesBanco?
- Will bed and breakfast establishments be permitted use in the supporting sub-zones?
Still to be discussed are the proposed Midway District and murals within the city. The group will meet again jointly to continue the discussion on Wednesday, July 31, at the City Building, 130 N. Fort Thomas Avenue. A link to the Phase Four Draft Unified Development Ordinance and related documents can be found on the city’s website.